Ok, some people here seem to be missing one big point. This matters to us "Pros" in a financial way.
First of all: for me, the definitiion of a "Pro" is, that said person is making a living out of it.
So, by this definition, i´m a Pro since 2004. Since the beginning i made every ? i ever earned on the Mac plattform. I´m not a big studio, i´m a single freelancer. And i have to rake in several thousand ? a month to make it work.
And i think many of the "pros" out there, that are so pissed of because of apples move towards the "prosumer", are like me. So please try to understand us.
Second of all: Nobody says that Apple is doomed, FCPX is a "beleagured system" or any of this nonsense. No real professional will say that. Apple is making money like hell and nothing is going to change that for the forseeable future.
What we are trying to say is this:
We spent the last decade building our business on our skill, Macs and severall software packages.
For most of us this was a Mac Pro running Finalcut Pro and the Adobe CS Suite. I do a lot of motion graphics, so i use Cinema 4D too.
If one of these pillars of my daily work is crumbling in, then that is threatening my whole business.
Please don´t try to out-argument my point. I know that it is possible to do that. I know that there are alternatives to my workflow. I know that apple "had to do this" and "had to do that" and that they walked away from other popular things in the past.
But i personaly (and from the comments i can tell many of you too) just can´t sit back and wait till FCPX is good enough to work with it. The costs of living would eat me.
So PLEASE stop it with all these wiseass comments about how "FCPX will be perfect in the future" or how discontinuing the Mac Pro line doesn´t affect anybody. If that is true for you, i´m happy for you. But for the rest of "us professionals" this stuff matters. A lot.
Hey, Tobias...
Agreed, but I would also like to add that I have cut two features and a pilot this last year with FCP7 on my MacBook Air, eschewing not only FCPX, but the Mac Pro, and it was a wonderful experience, but one that would have been impossible with the latest software revision due to the professional workflow involved.
While I would (will?) miss the beefier Mac Pro and a 64bit editing software, it's not impossible to do the work with new technology and older software, which speaks to the strength of FCP7 and highlights the SEVERE limitations of the enthusiast junk known as FCPX.
I know. I have edited / worked on my 3 year old MacBook Pro for months last year and it worked fine. Most of the time.
When it comes to rendering complex scenes in Cinema 4D, any laptop is useless. Any Apple laptop at least. It can be done - but i can´t sell it to my clients that i have to charge them 4 more days because "it took my laptop so long to render this"
But that is not the point here, i know.
The point is that we were very comfortable with the Mac Pro and it´s ecosystem.
Apple is clearly bound to leave that ecosystem. They did in the last 2 years and they will continue doing so.
"Post PC" remember?
So, each and every news that comes out on the topic of FCPX or the Mac Pro just tickles that "I´m afraid for my professional future" nerve in us.
We all have to find an alternative to this and that, we have to spend more money, we have to learn new software (and i mean totaly new software, not a new version of one we already know)
And while doing all that, we have to come up with thousands of ? or $ a month to pay for all of it.
And though we all know that there will be some way to make it work in the furure, it still is troubling us.
When FCPX came out i was in such a shock that i didn´t go to the office that day, because i knew that "it had begun"
The future is mobile... plain and simple. This is FACT, plain and simple. Anyone disagreeing is living in a fantasy world.
The future fight between companies (like the 1980's with the desktop) will be fought in mobile. Apple learned in the 1980's that software, not hardware, sells devices. Thats why we have the iphone (a platform built to run iOS). Apple builds hardware so they can deliver their great software to the masses. With the future battle of mobile coming and where Apple currently stands, the reason I see for the huge change to FCPX is simple the iPad 3 and/or 4. The future as Apple sees it is FCPX running on mobile devices. I see them not seeing a future in the current form of pro workflow. (video and photo and anything else creative) I see them changing the game in photo/video (as well as other things) with the iPad 3/4 and software NEEDS to be written for their future vision.
There was a rumor that they changed directly of the next FCP back a few years ago. This simple was because the company decided to focus on their vision in the mobile space. And if a company wants to own the next 20 years in mobile, the software better be there or no one is buying. FCPX I believe was built with mobile in mind and will be easily ported to the ipad in the coming 12 months. Aperture is probably being ported already. Perhaps introduced alongside the iPad retina? (Like iMovie was last year) FCPX as with Aperture will be on the iPad sooner than later. And a complete codebase redesign for FCPX needed to happen.
But it will take some time to get comfortable with the new situation.
And there simply are some problems attached to this whole "evrything mobile" thing. At least for now they are.
All i was tring to say was that we all see where this is going and nobody tries to deny that. But we kinda don´t want everything to change just because mainsream computing goes that way.
That´s why this discussion gets so serious everytime.
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.
That is idiotic. Apple doesn't need to cater to true professionals....look at sales. They are a consumer electronics company now, just Apple Computer, Inc. Get used to it.
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.
I'm certain it was not done "with a complete disregard to the people who actually make a living using their product". I recall quite a few stories talking about how they invited top professionals in to critique and test the software to determine its readiness and functionality. I even recall them having a special event just for video professionals where they showed off FCP X to wide acclaim. Indeed if not for the few features missing at the very beginning (which have been spoken of earlier and which some have already been remedied), I believe there would be almost none of the [very few] leavings that we're seeing now. They merely decided to release the core project earlier as opposed to waiting two more years.
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.
Well, if you want to be proud that you're outselling Pinnacle Studio and Vegas Movie Studio, you've got a lot to be proud of.
The future is mobile... plain and simple. This is FACT, plain and simple. Anyone disagreeing is living in a fantasy world.
The future fight between companies (like the 1980's with the desktop) will be fought in mobile. Apple learned in the 1980's that software, not hardware, sells devices. Thats why we have the iphone (a platform built to run iOS). Apple builds hardware so they can deliver their great software to the masses. With the future battle of mobile coming and where Apple currently stands, the reason I see for the huge change to FCPX is simple the iPad 3 and/or 4. The future as Apple sees it is FCPX running on mobile devices. I see them not seeing a future in the current form of pro workflow. (video and photo and anything else creative) I see them changing the game in photo/video (as well as other things) with the iPad 3/4 and software NEEDS to be written for their future vision.
There was a rumor that they changed directly of the next FCP back a few years ago. This simple was because the company decided to focus on their vision in the mobile space. And if a company wants to own the next 20 years in mobile, the software better be there or no one is buying. FCPX I believe was built with mobile in mind and will be easily ported to the ipad in the coming 12 months. Aperture is probably being ported already. Perhaps introduced alongside the iPad retina? (Like iMovie was last year) FCPX as with Aperture will be on the iPad sooner than later. And a complete codebase redesign for FCPX needed to happen.
I don't completely agree with the statement.
Very intensive production work will always be bound to big displays of a kind and those won't be mobile in the near future. I can't say what's it going to be like in 5-10 years from now, but for the time being .. no.
It would be great however, if there are tools for mobile devices like the iPad and iPhone, that integrate seamlessly into the projects that you are working on on the big machines. Something that has actually started already. So a slimmed down FCPX for the iPad would be a buy ASAP for me.
I wanted a Mac Pro for its expandability, but it's priced out of range. The next step down, the iMac, offers similar performance, but lacks severely in expandability. A Mac Pro will the performance of the iMac 27", for about $2000 was all that I'm looking for, and unsatisfied by Apple.
I remember back in the day when us Mac fans would point out each and every mac sighting in movies/TV/Ads. As the pros behind the video/movie were apple users or fans they would prop with apple. Sometimes even the good guy used apple and the bad guy didn't, what happens when apple casts those pros away? Apple is doing the same thing with the Mac pro, letting it wither in favor of the iMac/Macbook which also affects the design industry... as in most ads both online and in print.
Say what you will about the reality shows, garbage yes, but the fact remains many people watch them. If this is a trend for apple to abandon the pro, how will it impact apple in the long run. I work in advertising/design and when we need to show a computer we grab one from the office, we don't go out and buy one for a photo or shot clip, I have to think TV and even movies may be the same.
If the pros switch to other non Mac specific solutions and as more computers are replaced/added over time and the computer on hand is a PC, will we see more PCs show up in TV/Movies/Videos/Ads?
There is strong rumor that Apple had a 64bit version of FCP ready and canned it in favor of FCX, they could have released both, they could have given away the 64bit version and said we are working on your future software give us time (that might have been cheaper than the backlash). They handled the situation with arrogance and disregard for those that use the software.
That sort of trend is the demise of many companies,
I know. I have edited / worked on my 3 year old MacBook Pro for months last year and it worked fine. Most of the time.
When it comes to rendering complex scenes in Cinema 4D, any laptop is useless. Any Apple laptop at least. It can be done - but i can´t sell it to my clients that i have to charge them 4 more days because "it took my laptop so long to render this"
But that is not the point here, i know.
The point is that we were very comfortable with the Mac Pro and it´s ecosystem.
Apple is clearly bound to leave that ecosystem. They did in the last 2 years and they will continue doing so.
"Post PC" remember?
So, each and every news that comes out on the topic of FCPX or the Mac Pro just tickles that "I´m afraid for my professional future" nerve in us.
We all have to find an alternative to this and that, we have to spend more money, we have to learn new software (and i mean totaly new software, not a new version of one we already know)
And while doing all that, we have to come up with thousands of € or $ a month to pay for all of it.
And though we all know that there will be some way to make it work in the furure, it still is troubling us.
When FCPX came out i was in such a shock that i didn´t go to the office that day, because i knew that "it had begun"
I think you may go to your office again now! It has not begun yet and it hopefully never will.
As for the MacPro, I am sure they are working on it right now. I hope towards this summer/autum it is going to be released. I am due for an upgrade!
Unless they come out with an outstanding speed bump and 24 core processing in their iMac line
Its real issue is performance -- it slows down to a crawl as projects expand beyond a couple of minutes, and that's on top-of-the-line gear.
Yeah, I noticed this. Motion does this too and it makes sense now that they share the same render engine. FCPX shouldn't really need to render so much though as it's not an effects package. I can see a convergence of the two apps down the line and if that happened, it would explain a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
is the issue really that some people just don't like change
Nope. If you replaced a filmmaker's Arri Alexa with a Canon 5D, you could ask if their reason for moaning is just because they don't like change and they will reply 'nope'. An experienced filmmaker can probably get good shots on both but they require different workflows and different experience and that time investment is only justified if the change allows them to do a better job. Final Cut Pro X hasn't really demonstrated that it allows experienced editors to do a better job but it did make some things worse, so for the time being, I'd say people are entirely justified to migrate to a platform that works better for them.
There's a period of time that a piece of software goes through before it is production ready. That very rarely comes with a version 1 product, which is how the FCPX designers refer to it. They should have been aware that the film industry wouldn't adopt a product that isn't production tested because the costs of failure are high.
There's a simple test to do, we just take away Apple's professional milling tools for their hardware design and replace them with a more modern machine designed for low-volume use. Then we'll see who complains when they can only make 5 iPhones a day. Do as you would have others do unto you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoffdino
requirements for HFS volume (why??? Lightroom can work with any disk format)
This is probably related to metadata in some way. Attributes stored by Aperture are probably accessible from other parts of the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I listened to Raudonis advocate an open mind for FCPX, on several occasions...
He did not appear as one who could be (or needed to be) bought.
Yeah, he apparently switched from Avid originally years ago simply because their products didn't cut it:
I guess you just have to switch the companies round now and it's the same story:
"Looking back now to my switch, I?m reminded of Robert Frost?s poem, ?The Road Not Taken?.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
The biggest investment would have been hardware originally, which at least isn't the case this time round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What makes you think Apple's innovation stems around its pro apps?
I'd say most of Apple's recognised software started life at the top and worked down, not the other way:
Logic -> Garageband
FCP -> iMovie
Shake -> Motion
It's better to have more capability than you need. If you have less, you have no choice but to go somewhere else. Consumers also tend not to push boundaries. Look at the Think Different ad. Are any of those people average Joes sitting in their underwear until early afternoon? No, they are people who had a passion for what they do and they push the limits to do something exceptional. That's what professionals do. That's why Shake had a scanline/tile renderer because older hardware couldn't cope, same deal with Renderman. They adapt software to do the best job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
You guys are trying to spin this as "pro community abandons FCP sinking ship". But FCP was never the reigning big dog to begin with.
That is a very important point but there is still a high-end community on FCP that this story demonstrates that will drift back to Avid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrreRange
"Reality TV heavyweight" - ROFLOL - producer of totally mindless crap!!! And this is a bad trend? Hardly.
It's not the content that's important really but the workflow. If you work on a Hollywood film, they will generally have massive budgets and the best people working on it and they work to a screenplay. If you think that Reality TV is bad, just think that's the stuff that made it through the edit. They could easily have 10 hours per day x 5 days per week x 3 cameras = 150 hours of footage to work through for a half hour show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC
The problem with a lot of professionals is if it is not complicated it is not 'pro'.
I disagree. Professionals like control and with control comes complexity. You could walk into a aircraft cabin, look at all the switches and dials and proclaim that the complexity is superficial and can be replaced with a single joystick for up/down/left/right but when you hit a problem, you have no means to fix it yourself i.e you are not in control. Professional software almost has to be an API to be production ready and Apple didn't even provide that initially in the form of the XML toolkit.
Simplicity and control aren't mutually exclusive of course as Mac OS X itself very readily demonstrates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb
Avid was number 1 anyway, so Apple clearly just figured "what the hell"
That does seem plausible and Apple had to overhaul FCP. It did a good job but it was an ugly piece of software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418
Agreed, but I would also like to add that I have cut two features and a pilot this last year with FCP7 on my MacBook Air, eschewing not only FCPX, but the Mac Pro, and it was a wonderful experience, but one that would have been impossible with the latest software revision due to the professional workflow involved.
The phrase 'professional workflow' doesn't highlight the problems specifically but I expect would include:
Changing the asset management from using any amount of scratch folders for media and rendering to an Events system that has great difficulty relinking media.
Changing the native editing engine to one that transparently transcodes everything to ProRes regardless of the change made to the media.
Limited import/export options for frame sizes and rates and requiring Compressor for flexible export.
Limited import/export for external processing like audio reworking and effects, partly fixed in recent versions.
I expect that Apple is right now hearing what all the problems are and they have worked to fix some of them. They have said openly they are trying to cater to the industry so only a few scenarios can happen:
- they ignore the requests and they are dropped
- they fix the problems and they manage to maintain some foothold in the industry with a tarnished reputation
I don't see there being a mass migration to an alternative package because they all suck in one way or another and they are all expensive so I expect the latter will be the outcome. If the Python API comes to fruition, that will open up some interesting possibilities.
I'm certain it was not done "with a complete disregard to the people who actually make a living using their product". I recall quite a few stories talking about how they invited top professionals in to critique and test the software to determine its readiness and functionality. I even recall them having a special event just for video professionals where they showed off FCP X to wide acclaim. Indeed if not for the few features missing at the very beginning (which have been spoken of earlier and which some have already been remedied), I believe there would be almost none of the [very few] leavings that we're seeing now. They merely decided to release the core project earlier as opposed to waiting two more years.
Those chosen by Apple to represent professional editors were and are laughable as representatives of the actual professional community, and basically little more than biased, ignorant enthusiasts, and that is a fact.
Those chosen by Apple to represent professional editors were and are laughable as representatives of the actual professional community, and basically little more than biased, ignorant enthusiasts, and that is a fact.
That's what you'd call the National Association of Broadcasters trade show in Las Vegas where it was first publicly shown off? As well as what's reported here for the initial closed preview:http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/w.../archives/1365?
Now, I'm no video professional myself and am only working off of what I've read, but that doesn't seem to match up with your description at all.
Well gee. Apple continues the dummification of their products and so professionals look for other solutions. Who would have foreseen this happening?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77
That's what you'd call the National Association of Broadcasters trade show in Las Vegas where it was first publicly shown off? As well as what's reported here for the initial closed preview:http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/w.../archives/1365?
Now, I'm no video professional myself and am only working off of what I've read, but that doesn't seem to match up with your description at all.
All these reviews that are based on "before release presentation XY" where Jaw droppers because everybody was thinking that they ADDED these features to the features from FCP7
FCPX has some sweet things on board. But only the new features on their own don´t cut it.
All these reviews that are based on "before release presentation XY" where Jaw droppers because everybody was thinking that they ADDED these features to the features from FCP7
FCPX has some sweet things on board. But only the new features on their own don´t cut it.
I agree completely. I was merely refuting the assertion that Apple never intended this for the professional market.
...and that's their choice. They see themselves as a consumer electronics company: iPod, iPad, AppleTV, iPhone, iTunes, Apple Computer Inc -> Apple Inc, etc.....
As many others have said before, there is a hell of a lot more money in the consumer market than in the pro market. The only reason Nikon and Canon are able to offer up D3's and Mark IV's is because they sell boat loads of Coolpix and Rebels.
I do wish Apple would continue to offer a small selection of pro tools like Nikon and Canon for those of us who need and use them everyday.
I am a professional photographer and I CANNOT do my work effectively on an iMac or a MacBook (I have tried). I need the horsepower and options that a MacPro or MacBookPro offer.
I love my Apple products, but if the MacPro and MacBookPro get dropped...I will most likely switch to Windows based machines.
For me, they are just tools. No use bitchin' about it. It is what it is.
Comments
Ok, some people here seem to be missing one big point. This matters to us "Pros" in a financial way.
First of all: for me, the definitiion of a "Pro" is, that said person is making a living out of it.
So, by this definition, i´m a Pro since 2004. Since the beginning i made every ? i ever earned on the Mac plattform. I´m not a big studio, i´m a single freelancer. And i have to rake in several thousand ? a month to make it work.
And i think many of the "pros" out there, that are so pissed of because of apples move towards the "prosumer", are like me. So please try to understand us.
Second of all: Nobody says that Apple is doomed, FCPX is a "beleagured system" or any of this nonsense. No real professional will say that. Apple is making money like hell and nothing is going to change that for the forseeable future.
What we are trying to say is this:
We spent the last decade building our business on our skill, Macs and severall software packages.
For most of us this was a Mac Pro running Finalcut Pro and the Adobe CS Suite. I do a lot of motion graphics, so i use Cinema 4D too.
If one of these pillars of my daily work is crumbling in, then that is threatening my whole business.
Please don´t try to out-argument my point. I know that it is possible to do that. I know that there are alternatives to my workflow. I know that apple "had to do this" and "had to do that" and that they walked away from other popular things in the past.
But i personaly (and from the comments i can tell many of you too) just can´t sit back and wait till FCPX is good enough to work with it. The costs of living would eat me.
So PLEASE stop it with all these wiseass comments about how "FCPX will be perfect in the future" or how discontinuing the Mac Pro line doesn´t affect anybody. If that is true for you, i´m happy for you. But for the rest of "us professionals" this stuff matters. A lot.
Hey, Tobias...
Agreed, but I would also like to add that I have cut two features and a pilot this last year with FCP7 on my MacBook Air, eschewing not only FCPX, but the Mac Pro, and it was a wonderful experience, but one that would have been impossible with the latest software revision due to the professional workflow involved.
While I would (will?) miss the beefier Mac Pro and a 64bit editing software, it's not impossible to do the work with new technology and older software, which speaks to the strength of FCP7 and highlights the SEVERE limitations of the enthusiast junk known as FCPX.
When it comes to rendering complex scenes in Cinema 4D, any laptop is useless. Any Apple laptop at least. It can be done - but i can´t sell it to my clients that i have to charge them 4 more days because "it took my laptop so long to render this"
But that is not the point here, i know.
The point is that we were very comfortable with the Mac Pro and it´s ecosystem.
Apple is clearly bound to leave that ecosystem. They did in the last 2 years and they will continue doing so.
"Post PC" remember?
So, each and every news that comes out on the topic of FCPX or the Mac Pro just tickles that "I´m afraid for my professional future" nerve in us.
We all have to find an alternative to this and that, we have to spend more money, we have to learn new software (and i mean totaly new software, not a new version of one we already know)
And while doing all that, we have to come up with thousands of ? or $ a month to pay for all of it.
And though we all know that there will be some way to make it work in the furure, it still is troubling us.
When FCPX came out i was in such a shock that i didn´t go to the office that day, because i knew that "it had begun"
The future fight between companies (like the 1980's with the desktop) will be fought in mobile. Apple learned in the 1980's that software, not hardware, sells devices. Thats why we have the iphone (a platform built to run iOS). Apple builds hardware so they can deliver their great software to the masses. With the future battle of mobile coming and where Apple currently stands, the reason I see for the huge change to FCPX is simple the iPad 3 and/or 4. The future as Apple sees it is FCPX running on mobile devices. I see them not seeing a future in the current form of pro workflow. (video and photo and anything else creative) I see them changing the game in photo/video (as well as other things) with the iPad 3/4 and software NEEDS to be written for their future vision.
There was a rumor that they changed directly of the next FCP back a few years ago. This simple was because the company decided to focus on their vision in the mobile space. And if a company wants to own the next 20 years in mobile, the software better be there or no one is buying. FCPX I believe was built with mobile in mind and will be easily ported to the ipad in the coming 12 months. Aperture is probably being ported already. Perhaps introduced alongside the iPad retina? (Like iMovie was last year) FCPX as with Aperture will be on the iPad sooner than later. And a complete codebase redesign for FCPX needed to happen.
But it will take some time to get comfortable with the new situation.
And there simply are some problems attached to this whole "evrything mobile" thing. At least for now they are.
All i was tring to say was that we all see where this is going and nobody tries to deny that. But we kinda don´t want everything to change just because mainsream computing goes that way.
That´s why this discussion gets so serious everytime.
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.
That is idiotic. Apple doesn't need to cater to true professionals....look at sales. They are a consumer electronics company now, just Apple Computer, Inc. Get used to it.
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!
+1!
I saw a similar kind of outcry when apple changed from the loved OS 9 to OS X.
And now we all have to agree, if apple hadn't had the guts to cut that tree .....
I beliefe the same thing is going to happen with FPCX. They just started this from scratch.
So lets wait and see where we will be in a couple of years
Anyway, concerning major product renewals, apple has rearly been wrong in the past 15 years.
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.
I'm certain it was not done "with a complete disregard to the people who actually make a living using their product". I recall quite a few stories talking about how they invited top professionals in to critique and test the software to determine its readiness and functionality. I even recall them having a special event just for video professionals where they showed off FCP X to wide acclaim. Indeed if not for the few features missing at the very beginning (which have been spoken of earlier and which some have already been remedied), I believe there would be almost none of the [very few] leavings that we're seeing now. They merely decided to release the core project earlier as opposed to waiting two more years.
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.
Well, if you want to be proud that you're outselling Pinnacle Studio and Vegas Movie Studio, you've got a lot to be proud of.
The future is mobile... plain and simple. This is FACT, plain and simple. Anyone disagreeing is living in a fantasy world.
The future fight between companies (like the 1980's with the desktop) will be fought in mobile. Apple learned in the 1980's that software, not hardware, sells devices. Thats why we have the iphone (a platform built to run iOS). Apple builds hardware so they can deliver their great software to the masses. With the future battle of mobile coming and where Apple currently stands, the reason I see for the huge change to FCPX is simple the iPad 3 and/or 4. The future as Apple sees it is FCPX running on mobile devices. I see them not seeing a future in the current form of pro workflow. (video and photo and anything else creative) I see them changing the game in photo/video (as well as other things) with the iPad 3/4 and software NEEDS to be written for their future vision.
There was a rumor that they changed directly of the next FCP back a few years ago. This simple was because the company decided to focus on their vision in the mobile space. And if a company wants to own the next 20 years in mobile, the software better be there or no one is buying. FCPX I believe was built with mobile in mind and will be easily ported to the ipad in the coming 12 months. Aperture is probably being ported already. Perhaps introduced alongside the iPad retina? (Like iMovie was last year) FCPX as with Aperture will be on the iPad sooner than later. And a complete codebase redesign for FCPX needed to happen.
I don't completely agree with the statement.
Very intensive production work will always be bound to big displays of a kind and those won't be mobile in the near future. I can't say what's it going to be like in 5-10 years from now, but for the time being .. no.
It would be great however, if there are tools for mobile devices like the iPad and iPhone, that integrate seamlessly into the projects that you are working on on the big machines. Something that has actually started already. So a slimmed down FCPX for the iPad would be a buy ASAP for me.
I wanted a Mac Pro for its expandability, but it's priced out of range. The next step down, the iMac, offers similar performance, but lacks severely in expandability. A Mac Pro will the performance of the iMac 27", for about $2000 was all that I'm looking for, and unsatisfied by Apple.
How does this look?
Say what you will about the reality shows, garbage yes, but the fact remains many people watch them. If this is a trend for apple to abandon the pro, how will it impact apple in the long run. I work in advertising/design and when we need to show a computer we grab one from the office, we don't go out and buy one for a photo or shot clip, I have to think TV and even movies may be the same.
If the pros switch to other non Mac specific solutions and as more computers are replaced/added over time and the computer on hand is a PC, will we see more PCs show up in TV/Movies/Videos/Ads?
There is strong rumor that Apple had a 64bit version of FCP ready and canned it in favor of FCX, they could have released both, they could have given away the 64bit version and said we are working on your future software give us time (that might have been cheaper than the backlash). They handled the situation with arrogance and disregard for those that use the software.
That sort of trend is the demise of many companies,
I know. I have edited / worked on my 3 year old MacBook Pro for months last year and it worked fine. Most of the time.
When it comes to rendering complex scenes in Cinema 4D, any laptop is useless. Any Apple laptop at least. It can be done - but i can´t sell it to my clients that i have to charge them 4 more days because "it took my laptop so long to render this"
But that is not the point here, i know.
The point is that we were very comfortable with the Mac Pro and it´s ecosystem.
Apple is clearly bound to leave that ecosystem. They did in the last 2 years and they will continue doing so.
"Post PC" remember?
So, each and every news that comes out on the topic of FCPX or the Mac Pro just tickles that "I´m afraid for my professional future" nerve in us.
We all have to find an alternative to this and that, we have to spend more money, we have to learn new software (and i mean totaly new software, not a new version of one we already know)
And while doing all that, we have to come up with thousands of € or $ a month to pay for all of it.
And though we all know that there will be some way to make it work in the furure, it still is troubling us.
When FCPX came out i was in such a shock that i didn´t go to the office that day, because i knew that "it had begun"
I think you may go to your office again now! It has not begun yet and it hopefully never will.
As for the MacPro, I am sure they are working on it right now. I hope towards this summer/autum it is going to be released. I am due for an upgrade!
Unless they come out with an outstanding speed bump and 24 core processing in their iMac line
I will definitely need a new MacPro.
Its real issue is performance -- it slows down to a crawl as projects expand beyond a couple of minutes, and that's on top-of-the-line gear.
Yeah, I noticed this. Motion does this too and it makes sense now that they share the same render engine. FCPX shouldn't really need to render so much though as it's not an effects package. I can see a convergence of the two apps down the line and if that happened, it would explain a lot.
is the issue really that some people just don't like change
Nope. If you replaced a filmmaker's Arri Alexa with a Canon 5D, you could ask if their reason for moaning is just because they don't like change and they will reply 'nope'. An experienced filmmaker can probably get good shots on both but they require different workflows and different experience and that time investment is only justified if the change allows them to do a better job. Final Cut Pro X hasn't really demonstrated that it allows experienced editors to do a better job but it did make some things worse, so for the time being, I'd say people are entirely justified to migrate to a platform that works better for them.
There's a period of time that a piece of software goes through before it is production ready. That very rarely comes with a version 1 product, which is how the FCPX designers refer to it. They should have been aware that the film industry wouldn't adopt a product that isn't production tested because the costs of failure are high.
There's a simple test to do, we just take away Apple's professional milling tools for their hardware design and replace them with a more modern machine designed for low-volume use. Then we'll see who complains when they can only make 5 iPhones a day. Do as you would have others do unto you.
requirements for HFS volume (why??? Lightroom can work with any disk format)
This is probably related to metadata in some way. Attributes stored by Aperture are probably accessible from other parts of the OS.
I listened to Raudonis advocate an open mind for FCPX, on several occasions...
He did not appear as one who could be (or needed to be) bought.
Yeah, he apparently switched from Avid originally years ago simply because their products didn't cut it:
http://www.avid2fcp.com/switcher-stories/mark-raudonis
I guess you just have to switch the companies round now and it's the same story:
"Looking back now to my switch, I?m reminded of Robert Frost?s poem, ?The Road Not Taken?.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
The biggest investment would have been hardware originally, which at least isn't the case this time round.
What makes you think Apple's innovation stems around its pro apps?
I'd say most of Apple's recognised software started life at the top and worked down, not the other way:
Logic -> Garageband
FCP -> iMovie
Shake -> Motion
It's better to have more capability than you need. If you have less, you have no choice but to go somewhere else. Consumers also tend not to push boundaries. Look at the Think Different ad. Are any of those people average Joes sitting in their underwear until early afternoon? No, they are people who had a passion for what they do and they push the limits to do something exceptional. That's what professionals do. That's why Shake had a scanline/tile renderer because older hardware couldn't cope, same deal with Renderman. They adapt software to do the best job.
You guys are trying to spin this as "pro community abandons FCP sinking ship". But FCP was never the reigning big dog to begin with.
That is a very important point but there is still a high-end community on FCP that this story demonstrates that will drift back to Avid.
"Reality TV heavyweight" - ROFLOL - producer of totally mindless crap!!! And this is a bad trend? Hardly.
It's not the content that's important really but the workflow. If you work on a Hollywood film, they will generally have massive budgets and the best people working on it and they work to a screenplay. If you think that Reality TV is bad, just think that's the stuff that made it through the edit. They could easily have 10 hours per day x 5 days per week x 3 cameras = 150 hours of footage to work through for a half hour show.
The problem with a lot of professionals is if it is not complicated it is not 'pro'.
I disagree. Professionals like control and with control comes complexity. You could walk into a aircraft cabin, look at all the switches and dials and proclaim that the complexity is superficial and can be replaced with a single joystick for up/down/left/right but when you hit a problem, you have no means to fix it yourself i.e you are not in control. Professional software almost has to be an API to be production ready and Apple didn't even provide that initially in the form of the XML toolkit.
Simplicity and control aren't mutually exclusive of course as Mac OS X itself very readily demonstrates.
Avid was number 1 anyway, so Apple clearly just figured "what the hell"
That does seem plausible and Apple had to overhaul FCP. It did a good job but it was an ugly piece of software.
Agreed, but I would also like to add that I have cut two features and a pilot this last year with FCP7 on my MacBook Air, eschewing not only FCPX, but the Mac Pro, and it was a wonderful experience, but one that would have been impossible with the latest software revision due to the professional workflow involved.
The phrase 'professional workflow' doesn't highlight the problems specifically but I expect would include:
Changing the asset management from using any amount of scratch folders for media and rendering to an Events system that has great difficulty relinking media.
Changing the native editing engine to one that transparently transcodes everything to ProRes regardless of the change made to the media.
Limited import/export options for frame sizes and rates and requiring Compressor for flexible export.
Limited import/export for external processing like audio reworking and effects, partly fixed in recent versions.
I expect that Apple is right now hearing what all the problems are and they have worked to fix some of them. They have said openly they are trying to cater to the industry so only a few scenarios can happen:
- they ignore the requests and they are dropped
- they fix the problems and they manage to maintain some foothold in the industry with a tarnished reputation
I don't see there being a mass migration to an alternative package because they all suck in one way or another and they are all expensive so I expect the latter will be the outcome. If the Python API comes to fruition, that will open up some interesting possibilities.
I'm certain it was not done "with a complete disregard to the people who actually make a living using their product". I recall quite a few stories talking about how they invited top professionals in to critique and test the software to determine its readiness and functionality. I even recall them having a special event just for video professionals where they showed off FCP X to wide acclaim. Indeed if not for the few features missing at the very beginning (which have been spoken of earlier and which some have already been remedied), I believe there would be almost none of the [very few] leavings that we're seeing now. They merely decided to release the core project earlier as opposed to waiting two more years.
Those chosen by Apple to represent professional editors were and are laughable as representatives of the actual professional community, and basically little more than biased, ignorant enthusiasts, and that is a fact.
Those chosen by Apple to represent professional editors were and are laughable as representatives of the actual professional community, and basically little more than biased, ignorant enthusiasts, and that is a fact.
That's what you'd call the National Association of Broadcasters trade show in Las Vegas where it was first publicly shown off? As well as what's reported here for the initial closed preview:http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/w.../archives/1365?
Now, I'm no video professional myself and am only working off of what I've read, but that doesn't seem to match up with your description at all.
Well gee. Apple continues the dummification of their products and so professionals look for other solutions. Who would have foreseen this happening?
Well gee. Apple continues the dummification of their products and so professionals look for other solutions. Who would have foreseen this happening?
That's what you'd call the National Association of Broadcasters trade show in Las Vegas where it was first publicly shown off? As well as what's reported here for the initial closed preview:http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/w.../archives/1365?
Now, I'm no video professional myself and am only working off of what I've read, but that doesn't seem to match up with your description at all.
All these reviews that are based on "before release presentation XY" where Jaw droppers because everybody was thinking that they ADDED these features to the features from FCP7
FCPX has some sweet things on board. But only the new features on their own don´t cut it.
All these reviews that are based on "before release presentation XY" where Jaw droppers because everybody was thinking that they ADDED these features to the features from FCP7
FCPX has some sweet things on board. But only the new features on their own don´t cut it.
I agree completely. I was merely refuting the assertion that Apple never intended this for the professional market.
As many others have said before, there is a hell of a lot more money in the consumer market than in the pro market. The only reason Nikon and Canon are able to offer up D3's and Mark IV's is because they sell boat loads of Coolpix and Rebels.
I do wish Apple would continue to offer a small selection of pro tools like Nikon and Canon for those of us who need and use them everyday.
I am a professional photographer and I CANNOT do my work effectively on an iMac or a MacBook (I have tried). I need the horsepower and options that a MacPro or MacBookPro offer.
I love my Apple products, but if the MacPro and MacBookPro get dropped...I will most likely switch to Windows based machines.
For me, they are just tools. No use bitchin' about it. It is what it is.