So when AMD or nVidia release a new video card, make it a no. 1 priority that there are compatible and stable drivers.
Apple's not in charge of that. And that's really the only thing they don't do, isn't it?
I forget which was which… One of them refuses to write their own drivers, so Apple has to do it for them (and they're bad), and the other writes their own, but they're just bad at it. Think nVidia's the latter.
Hmm interesting. So tell me about Apple's mark in the professional market with regards to video. If they are so bad, how smooth were things over the years? (not a rhetorical question, just genuinely curious)
Oh and spend some money on advertising for it. Make it noticeable. Just a few ads here and there. They did one for the PowerMac G5 and I'm almost certain they did at least one Mac Pro ad.
Well Phil Schiller just publicly confirmed that hard drives and optical drives are "anchors on the way we want to go". These technologies are holding Apple back.
Apple is very pleased at how well it is streamlining it's product line.
The new iMacs don't even have a firewire port. "ThunderBolt" is the answer to every question about expansion.
I don't see where there's anything left to put into a Mac Pro.
Over 80% of all Mac sales are Mac Books. Mac Pro sales are likely less than 1% of all Mac Sales. Obviously, Apple won't go out of business if they lose Mac Pro sales.
The people who buy new Mac are typical consumers. They use a computer as a tool. They do document processing, email, surf the web, buy music, balance their check book, and possibly spread sheets. That pretty much covers the vast majority of all users. The low end MacBook Air is more than enough computer for most people (the iPad is enough for most people).
Yes, there are people who need a powerful machine. There aren't enough of these people for Apple to bother. You may think that Apple needs to please these people in order to maintain their reputation. I suspect it's just the opposite. Apple wants to simplify their product line to make it easy for the consumer. There's no need to waste resources on supporting expansion slots when 99% of Macs sold won't have them.
Look at the iPad. It doesn't have a USB connector or a flash card slot. The competition does. Yet, somehow Apple has dominated the tablet market. Do they dominate despite the fact that the don't have a high end expandable tablet, or do they dominate because they offer a simple product without unnecessary functionality?
Hmm interesting. So tell me about Apple's mark in the professional market with regards to video. If they are so bad, how smooth were things over the years? (not a rhetorical question, just genuinely curious)
Oh and spend some money on advertising for it. Make it noticeable. Just a few ads here and there. They did one for the PowerMac G5 and I'm almost certain they did at least one Mac Pro ad.
Although Apple claims the professional video market is important, they have abandoned it.
They released a new version of Final Cut that doesn't work on projects created with the old version. If your client needs you to modify a project from a few years ago, you have a real problem.
On release of the new version, it was missing many features that professional need. On release day Apple stopped selling the old version, and recalled it from stores. If you were in the middle of a large project and needed to add another person you were out of luck. Apple wouldn't sell you a license to add another seat of the old version, and the new version wouldn't work with the old project.
Yes, Apple talks about being in the professional video market, but this is to promote sales to the high end, home pro-sumer market. For every real video professional, there are a hundred consumers who think they are video editors. If Apple loses the pro market, but gains half the pro-sumer market, sales will go up 50 fold.
If you want to see a company interested in the professional market, look for a company that has a track record of supporting old projects, doesn't drop functionality without notice, and gives a roadmap so companies can budget future purchases. Don't look at company that pulls the rug out from under their customers.
Apple is clearly not serious about the professional video market.
I'm not sure what to say then. I don't think it's dead though if it is not for is only paying attention to the pro-sumer market, how do you revive this machine? Can they fix FCP? Do they just need to look for people?
I'm not sure what to say then. I don't think it's dead though if it is not for is only paying attention to the pro-sumer market, how do you revive this machine? Can they fix FCP? Do they just need to look for people?
Yes, Apple could fix it. But why would they want to?
The Pro market is tiny compared to the consumer market. They have limited resources and they have a much higher return on investment focusing their resources on the consumer market.
Their current strategy is working extremely well. Last quarter they made enough profit to up their available cash by $4.2 billion to $121.4 billion. Their sales are increasing at a rate much faster than the industry as a whole.
You may not like their strategy, but it is clearly extremely successful.
If your client needs you to modify a project from a few years ago, you have a real problem.
Yeah, you buy a five dollar converter. Holy crap, breaking the bank.
On release of the new version, it was missing many features that professional need.
Whoop de frick. Is it the release date today? No? How about that most recent update they just put out, which was not the first update? Did you see that? See what it added? You're doing the equivalent of looking at a movie's previs reel and critiquing it as though it's the completed movie. I'd think someone in the professional video industry would know better.
On release day Apple stopped selling the old version, and recalled it from stores.
Yeah, never mind that they kept selling the old version.
If you want to see a company interested in the professional market, look for a company that has a track record of supporting old projects, doesn't drop functionality without notice, and gives a roadmap so companies can budget future purchases.
Why would people in that market want to move to a company that doesn't care at all in any form whatsoever about future technology?
Yes, there are people who need a powerful machine. There aren't enough of these people for Apple to bother.
Plus the lower-end lineup contains powerful machines too. The typical idea of a PC workstation isn't a multi-processor Xeon with a Quadro or FirePro, it's an i7-3770 with GTX 680. The iMac can be configured with a 680MX, which is even faster than the 680M and should be among the top 5 or so GPUs (including desktop) you can buy. They might use the i7-3770S but it should score around 7-7.5 in Cinebench.
While the MP with the latest hardware can offer up to 3x the performance for 3x the price, usage scenearios have to be taken into consideration.
For editing video, you don't need a Mac Pro for the bulk of it, just fast storage. For encoding/transcoding, the extra power helps but individual users aren't going to be encoding/transcoding hours and hours of 4K footage. For production-quality CGI, one high-end Mac Pro isn't fast enough and the price is high for individuals.
The middle Mini can also be used in an array for transcoding/rendering and is very cost-effective. You only need 1 iMac + 2 Minis to top the 12-core Mac Pro and you save over $2k.
Developers and users of high-resource software won't stop supporting the software at all:
There's a growing realisation that making software easy to use and accessible doesn't make it useless for important jobs.
There is a price range above the iMac that is worth filling though. If Apple continues with the MP, I reckon the first thing to do is kill the dual processor models and start making the single processor models worthwhile. This means using a $1000 CPU in a $2999 model (10/12-core e.g Ivy Bridge equivalent of E5-1650/60) and a $500 CPU in the $2499 model (6-core) - this means building the rest of the machine in a budget of ~$1100 and allowing 40% margins. Double the performance for 50% more money than the iMac. For high-resource usage like transcoding and rendering, make it easy to put into an array. The same GPU as the iMac is fine and 4-6x 20Gbps TB ports. They've got until Q3 2013 so plenty of time to figure this out and this will be the last Mac Pro they need to make; discontinue it around 2023.
Although Apple claims the professional video market is important, they have abandoned it.
They released a new version of Final Cut that doesn't work on projects created with the old version. If your client needs you to modify a project from a few years ago, you have a real problem.
Only if you tossed your old software. Pro editors don't make that mistake. Most of them even keep old hardware to run the software.
And just because Apple didn't include a function doesn't mean it's not possible via a 3rd party solution.
Yeah, you buy a five dollar converter. Holy crap, breaking the bank.
Whoop de frick. Is it the release date today? No? How about that most recent update they just put out, which was not the first update? Did you see that? See what it added? You're doing the equivalent of looking at a movie's previs reel and critiquing it as though it's the completed movie. I'd think someone in the professional video industry would know better.
Yeah, never mind that they kept selling the old version.
Why would people in that market want to move to a company that doesn't care at all in any form whatsoever about future technology?
The day Apple announced the new Final Cut they discontinued the old, and pulled remaining stock from shelves. This created such an outcry from consumers that they eventually made the old version available to those who figured out how to buy it.
When Apple announced the new version it was missing needed features that were available in the old version. Eventually many of these features were added back. I assume your customers were very understanding when you said their project would be delayed while you waited for Apple to add back features.
This is not how a company who cares about the professional market treats customers. If your customers are professionals you need to ease the transition from one product to the next. There should be overlap between the old and new products (not a gap). There should be a clear migration path for moving long term projects from the old to the new. Apple provided none of these.
I'm not saying that FCP is a bad product. I am saying that the Apple's treatment of customers makes FCP a bad choice for professionals.
I'm not sure what to say then. I don't think it's dead though if it is not for is only paying attention to the pro-sumer market, how do you revive this machine? Can they fix FCP? Do they just need to look for people?
Define 'fix'. I'll bet if you ask 100 people that question you'll get 100 different answers. The most outrageous and 'include everything' type answers will come mostly from folks that aren't pro editors (or at least not full time ones) if editors at all. "Put it back the way it was" will come mainly from older folks that don't want to be bothered with learning something new. And so on.
Only if you tossed your old software. Pro editors don't make that mistake. Most of them even keep old hardware to run the software.
And just because Apple didn't include a function doesn't mean it's not possible via a 3rd party solution.
Yes, I have to keep old hardware around to run old software. I fear the day that the old hardware dies, as Apple doesn't repair or support old hardware, and new hardware won't run old software.
I have a project that requires custom software. The software needs to be used twice a year for about a week each time. The software was written in 1990 for a DOS computer. I can still go out and buy new hardware, and the software runs better than the day it was written. if the software had been developed for a Mac, it would have had to have been rewritten 2 or 3 times just to be able to run it on modern hardware.
This is not a hardware issue. This is an Apple policy issue. For instance Apple used to use PPC chips. When they switched to Intel, they bundled in "Rosetta". This was software that allowed PPC programs to run on Intel. The newer Intel processors are fast enough, that the PPC software runs faster than it did on the original PPC hardware. Rosetta required no ongoing maintenance from Apple. There was no need to implement new system calls as it is intended for legacy software. Apple already has a need to support the old system calls for older Intel native software. Apple's policy was to discontinue Rosetta in order to eliminate older software so users switch to newer "better" software.
It is sometimes very difficult to justify investing in Mac instead of Windows, when history clearly demonstrates that Apple is far less concerned in supporting your investment.
Of course, the older Macs still work. Just don't connect them to the Internet as Apple no longer provides security updates for old OS versions, and they won't provide a new OS version to run on that old hardware.
Yeah, never mind that they kept selling the old version.
They didn't originally. They stopped it short the moment that FCPX came out and that's caused some vocal complaints. Folks didn't like that they couldn't still get it. They were shouting a bunch of scenarios that were 'what if' cases that they probably weren't even worried about but still it was loud. So after a couple of months, Apple put FCS3 back online for sales.
Even then, how much of that was Apple's fault. It's standard form that they don't 'clearance' old software, just hardware. Truly pro shops buy in advanced based on what they think they will need and some padding so anyone that was cutting a pilot that might need 50 seats would have already gotten 50 seats by the time FCPX came out because they would have a clue if the pilot might get picked up (if not a confirmation already). It's a business write off after all.
Many of the features that were 'cut' are not used by all houses and had 3rd party options (many of which Apple was just licensing to put into the FCP software in the first place). Most of the whining was over having to learn something new. But that's just the name of the game. Would it have been nice if the UI had remained 100% the time. For some folks, some might not have liked the old UI that much but dealt with it. Would it have been nice if all the features no matter how obscure were there from day one? Sure but that makes for harder debugging. Would it have been nice if they restored all the missing Shake features either to FCP, Motion or a new program. Some folks are still screaming yes.
Would it have been nice if Apple had warned editors. Well 'from the ground up' should have been that warning. It certainly was for my shop and every shop we work with.
When Apple announced the new version it was missing needed features that were available in the old version.
And the worst part is that they used their big mighty kill switch to make that old version not working anymore. The moment FCPX hit the market all prior versions of FCP, Motion, etc wouldn't even open. We were all stuck having to pay to get the new crappy software because that's all that would work.
Or not.
If you were one of the fraction of editors that really needed this or that feature or just decided (as many truly Pro houses did) to keep using FCS3 while your editors learned the new UI etc and you waited for the bugs to be worked out, you could do it just fine
It is sometimes very difficult to justify investing in Mac instead of Windows, when history clearly demonstrates that Apple is far less concerned in supporting your investment.
So don't use Mac. That's your call. Keep using your precious custom software if you like. But don't whine when you lose jobs because you aren't with the times. You made your bed after all. So if you burn in it, that's your call.
But do not presume that you speak for anyone but yourself or that you KNOW what is the right move for the industry as a whole. Because your needs and desires are not universal and no company, Apple or otherwise, should kowtow to your individual needs simply because that's what you want.
True however you don't want to alienate your longtime supporters. Nintendo hasn't gone under yet because they still make several decent titles though there's now a split between casual and hardcore whereas back in the NES, SNES, and even N64 days there was no line. Casual and hardcore alike loved the original Super Mario Bros. for example.
To me Apple shouldn't blur the line because I feel everyone loving these iPhones and iPads is not permanent. It's just what's hot right now. Put a good focus on that, put a good focus on the computers, etc.
Nintendo's creation of casual gaming was a mistake. People will stop using smartphones and tablets and go back to desktops and laptops only again. Got it. Thanks for the amazing insight!
There are many posts I could reply to though the one that caught my eye was Marvin's. You think they should discontinue it after 2013? I'm curious why.
Comments
Originally Posted by Winter
So when AMD or nVidia release a new video card, make it a no. 1 priority that there are compatible and stable drivers.
Apple's not in charge of that. And that's really the only thing they don't do, isn't it?
I forget which was which… One of them refuses to write their own drivers, so Apple has to do it for them (and they're bad), and the other writes their own, but they're just bad at it. Think nVidia's the latter.
Oh and spend some money on advertising for it. Make it noticeable. Just a few ads here and there. They did one for the PowerMac G5 and I'm almost certain they did at least one Mac Pro ad.
Well Phil Schiller just publicly confirmed that hard drives and optical drives are "anchors on the way we want to go". These technologies are holding Apple back.
Apple is very pleased at how well it is streamlining it's product line.
The new iMacs don't even have a firewire port. "ThunderBolt" is the answer to every question about expansion.
I don't see where there's anything left to put into a Mac Pro.
Over 80% of all Mac sales are Mac Books. Mac Pro sales are likely less than 1% of all Mac Sales. Obviously, Apple won't go out of business if they lose Mac Pro sales.
The people who buy new Mac are typical consumers. They use a computer as a tool. They do document processing, email, surf the web, buy music, balance their check book, and possibly spread sheets. That pretty much covers the vast majority of all users. The low end MacBook Air is more than enough computer for most people (the iPad is enough for most people).
Yes, there are people who need a powerful machine. There aren't enough of these people for Apple to bother. You may think that Apple needs to please these people in order to maintain their reputation. I suspect it's just the opposite. Apple wants to simplify their product line to make it easy for the consumer. There's no need to waste resources on supporting expansion slots when 99% of Macs sold won't have them.
Look at the iPad. It doesn't have a USB connector or a flash card slot. The competition does. Yet, somehow Apple has dominated the tablet market. Do they dominate despite the fact that the don't have a high end expandable tablet, or do they dominate because they offer a simple product without unnecessary functionality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Hmm interesting. So tell me about Apple's mark in the professional market with regards to video. If they are so bad, how smooth were things over the years? (not a rhetorical question, just genuinely curious)
Oh and spend some money on advertising for it. Make it noticeable. Just a few ads here and there. They did one for the PowerMac G5 and I'm almost certain they did at least one Mac Pro ad.
Although Apple claims the professional video market is important, they have abandoned it.
They released a new version of Final Cut that doesn't work on projects created with the old version. If your client needs you to modify a project from a few years ago, you have a real problem.
On release of the new version, it was missing many features that professional need. On release day Apple stopped selling the old version, and recalled it from stores. If you were in the middle of a large project and needed to add another person you were out of luck. Apple wouldn't sell you a license to add another seat of the old version, and the new version wouldn't work with the old project.
Yes, Apple talks about being in the professional video market, but this is to promote sales to the high end, home pro-sumer market. For every real video professional, there are a hundred consumers who think they are video editors. If Apple loses the pro market, but gains half the pro-sumer market, sales will go up 50 fold.
If you want to see a company interested in the professional market, look for a company that has a track record of supporting old projects, doesn't drop functionality without notice, and gives a roadmap so companies can budget future purchases. Don't look at company that pulls the rug out from under their customers.
Apple is clearly not serious about the professional video market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I'm not sure what to say then. I don't think it's dead though if it is not for is only paying attention to the pro-sumer market, how do you revive this machine? Can they fix FCP? Do they just need to look for people?
Yes, Apple could fix it. But why would they want to?
The Pro market is tiny compared to the consumer market. They have limited resources and they have a much higher return on investment focusing their resources on the consumer market.
Their current strategy is working extremely well. Last quarter they made enough profit to up their available cash by $4.2 billion to $121.4 billion. Their sales are increasing at a rate much faster than the industry as a whole.
You may not like their strategy, but it is clearly extremely successful.
Originally Posted by mfryd
If your client needs you to modify a project from a few years ago, you have a real problem.
Yeah, you buy a five dollar converter. Holy crap, breaking the bank.
On release of the new version, it was missing many features that professional need.
Whoop de frick. Is it the release date today? No? How about that most recent update they just put out, which was not the first update? Did you see that? See what it added? You're doing the equivalent of looking at a movie's previs reel and critiquing it as though it's the completed movie. I'd think someone in the professional video industry would know better.
On release day Apple stopped selling the old version, and recalled it from stores.
Yeah, never mind that they kept selling the old version.
If you want to see a company interested in the professional market, look for a company that has a track record of supporting old projects, doesn't drop functionality without notice, and gives a roadmap so companies can budget future purchases.
Why would people in that market want to move to a company that doesn't care at all in any form whatsoever about future technology?
Plus the lower-end lineup contains powerful machines too. The typical idea of a PC workstation isn't a multi-processor Xeon with a Quadro or FirePro, it's an i7-3770 with GTX 680. The iMac can be configured with a 680MX, which is even faster than the 680M and should be among the top 5 or so GPUs (including desktop) you can buy. They might use the i7-3770S but it should score around 7-7.5 in Cinebench.
While the MP with the latest hardware can offer up to 3x the performance for 3x the price, usage scenearios have to be taken into consideration.
For editing video, you don't need a Mac Pro for the bulk of it, just fast storage. For encoding/transcoding, the extra power helps but individual users aren't going to be encoding/transcoding hours and hours of 4K footage. For production-quality CGI, one high-end Mac Pro isn't fast enough and the price is high for individuals.
The middle Mini can also be used in an array for transcoding/rendering and is very cost-effective. You only need 1 iMac + 2 Minis to top the 12-core Mac Pro and you save over $2k.
Developers and users of high-resource software won't stop supporting the software at all:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/walter-biscardi-yes-autodesk-smoke-2013-changes-everything
There's a growing realisation that making software easy to use and accessible doesn't make it useless for important jobs.
There is a price range above the iMac that is worth filling though. If Apple continues with the MP, I reckon the first thing to do is kill the dual processor models and start making the single processor models worthwhile. This means using a $1000 CPU in a $2999 model (10/12-core e.g Ivy Bridge equivalent of E5-1650/60) and a $500 CPU in the $2499 model (6-core) - this means building the rest of the machine in a budget of ~$1100 and allowing 40% margins. Double the performance for 50% more money than the iMac. For high-resource usage like transcoding and rendering, make it easy to put into an array. The same GPU as the iMac is fine and 4-6x 20Gbps TB ports. They've got until Q3 2013 so plenty of time to figure this out and this will be the last Mac Pro they need to make; discontinue it around 2023.
Originally Posted by Marvin
There's a growing realisation that making software easy to use and accessible doesn't make it useless for important jobs.
Tell that to the remaining Final Cut Pro X whiners…
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd
Although Apple claims the professional video market is important, they have abandoned it.
They released a new version of Final Cut that doesn't work on projects created with the old version. If your client needs you to modify a project from a few years ago, you have a real problem.
Only if you tossed your old software. Pro editors don't make that mistake. Most of them even keep old hardware to run the software.
And just because Apple didn't include a function doesn't mean it's not possible via a 3rd party solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, you buy a five dollar converter. Holy crap, breaking the bank.
Whoop de frick. Is it the release date today? No? How about that most recent update they just put out, which was not the first update? Did you see that? See what it added? You're doing the equivalent of looking at a movie's previs reel and critiquing it as though it's the completed movie. I'd think someone in the professional video industry would know better.
Yeah, never mind that they kept selling the old version.
Why would people in that market want to move to a company that doesn't care at all in any form whatsoever about future technology?
The day Apple announced the new Final Cut they discontinued the old, and pulled remaining stock from shelves. This created such an outcry from consumers that they eventually made the old version available to those who figured out how to buy it.
When Apple announced the new version it was missing needed features that were available in the old version. Eventually many of these features were added back. I assume your customers were very understanding when you said their project would be delayed while you waited for Apple to add back features.
This is not how a company who cares about the professional market treats customers. If your customers are professionals you need to ease the transition from one product to the next. There should be overlap between the old and new products (not a gap). There should be a clear migration path for moving long term projects from the old to the new. Apple provided none of these.
I'm not saying that FCP is a bad product. I am saying that the Apple's treatment of customers makes FCP a bad choice for professionals.
Originally Posted by mfryd
I assume your customers were very understanding when you said their project would be delayed while you waited for Apple to add back features.
Being in the industry, you did not delete your old software. You were perfectly capable of continuing the projects.
The facade is cracking.
This is not how a company who cares about the professional market treats customers.
And this is not how someone who is actually in the industry operates.
There should be a clear migration path for moving long term projects from the old to the new.
My apologies. It's TEN bucks. Better take out a loan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
I'm not sure what to say then. I don't think it's dead though if it is not for is only paying attention to the pro-sumer market, how do you revive this machine? Can they fix FCP? Do they just need to look for people?
Define 'fix'. I'll bet if you ask 100 people that question you'll get 100 different answers. The most outrageous and 'include everything' type answers will come mostly from folks that aren't pro editors (or at least not full time ones) if editors at all. "Put it back the way it was" will come mainly from older folks that don't want to be bothered with learning something new. And so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Only if you tossed your old software. Pro editors don't make that mistake. Most of them even keep old hardware to run the software.
And just because Apple didn't include a function doesn't mean it's not possible via a 3rd party solution.
Yes, I have to keep old hardware around to run old software. I fear the day that the old hardware dies, as Apple doesn't repair or support old hardware, and new hardware won't run old software.
I have a project that requires custom software. The software needs to be used twice a year for about a week each time. The software was written in 1990 for a DOS computer. I can still go out and buy new hardware, and the software runs better than the day it was written. if the software had been developed for a Mac, it would have had to have been rewritten 2 or 3 times just to be able to run it on modern hardware.
This is not a hardware issue. This is an Apple policy issue. For instance Apple used to use PPC chips. When they switched to Intel, they bundled in "Rosetta". This was software that allowed PPC programs to run on Intel. The newer Intel processors are fast enough, that the PPC software runs faster than it did on the original PPC hardware. Rosetta required no ongoing maintenance from Apple. There was no need to implement new system calls as it is intended for legacy software. Apple already has a need to support the old system calls for older Intel native software. Apple's policy was to discontinue Rosetta in order to eliminate older software so users switch to newer "better" software.
It is sometimes very difficult to justify investing in Mac instead of Windows, when history clearly demonstrates that Apple is far less concerned in supporting your investment.
Of course, the older Macs still work. Just don't connect them to the Internet as Apple no longer provides security updates for old OS versions, and they won't provide a new OS version to run on that old hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, never mind that they kept selling the old version.
They didn't originally. They stopped it short the moment that FCPX came out and that's caused some vocal complaints. Folks didn't like that they couldn't still get it. They were shouting a bunch of scenarios that were 'what if' cases that they probably weren't even worried about but still it was loud. So after a couple of months, Apple put FCS3 back online for sales.
Even then, how much of that was Apple's fault. It's standard form that they don't 'clearance' old software, just hardware. Truly pro shops buy in advanced based on what they think they will need and some padding so anyone that was cutting a pilot that might need 50 seats would have already gotten 50 seats by the time FCPX came out because they would have a clue if the pilot might get picked up (if not a confirmation already). It's a business write off after all.
Many of the features that were 'cut' are not used by all houses and had 3rd party options (many of which Apple was just licensing to put into the FCP software in the first place). Most of the whining was over having to learn something new. But that's just the name of the game. Would it have been nice if the UI had remained 100% the time. For some folks, some might not have liked the old UI that much but dealt with it. Would it have been nice if all the features no matter how obscure were there from day one? Sure but that makes for harder debugging. Would it have been nice if they restored all the missing Shake features either to FCP, Motion or a new program. Some folks are still screaming yes.
Would it have been nice if Apple had warned editors. Well 'from the ground up' should have been that warning. It certainly was for my shop and every shop we work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd
When Apple announced the new version it was missing needed features that were available in the old version.
And the worst part is that they used their big mighty kill switch to make that old version not working anymore. The moment FCPX hit the market all prior versions of FCP, Motion, etc wouldn't even open. We were all stuck having to pay to get the new crappy software because that's all that would work.
Or not.
If you were one of the fraction of editors that really needed this or that feature or just decided (as many truly Pro houses did) to keep using FCS3 while your editors learned the new UI etc and you waited for the bugs to be worked out, you could do it just fine
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd
It is sometimes very difficult to justify investing in Mac instead of Windows, when history clearly demonstrates that Apple is far less concerned in supporting your investment.
So don't use Mac. That's your call. Keep using your precious custom software if you like. But don't whine when you lose jobs because you aren't with the times. You made your bed after all. So if you burn in it, that's your call.
But do not presume that you speak for anyone but yourself or that you KNOW what is the right move for the industry as a whole. Because your needs and desires are not universal and no company, Apple or otherwise, should kowtow to your individual needs simply because that's what you want.
Nintendo's creation of casual gaming was a mistake. People will stop using smartphones and tablets and go back to desktops and laptops only again. Got it. Thanks for the amazing insight!
Tallest, I swear it must be the fluoride in our drinking water or something.