Bending Spoons lays off entire team behind Filmic Pro

AppleInsider

The team behind the popular Filmic Pro camera app for iPhone was reportedly laid off by its parent company, bending Spoons, putting the future of the filmmaking tool into question.

Filmic Pro

Filmic was absorbed by Bending Spoons in September 2022, at a time when the pro videography tool changed its subscription model. Over a year later, the team who worked on the app are now apparently out of the company.

According to PetaPixel, the team was completely gutted by Bending Spoons, effectively ending work on Filmic Pro and Filmic Firstlight. Report sources say the entire team was laid off, including the founder and CEO, Neill Barham.

While the layoffs haven't been publicly disclosed by Bending Spoons, anonymous sources tipped the publication off about the change. The LinkedIn account of Barham offers some evidence, with the CEO saying his time at Filmic ran until November 2023.

At the time of onboarding Filmic into Bending Spoons, it was claimed by the app makers that the change would "accelerate our development cycles, and ultimately build an even stronger, more valuable Filmic experience for our customers in the ever-expanding Creator Community."

Since the acquisition, development of Filmic Pro effectively stalled, with its last major feature update dating back to December 2022, though it did add Apple Log support in October.

Bending Spoons operates multiple apps, including Splice, Remini, 30 Day Fitness, and following an acquisition announcement in November 2022 and the completion in March 2023, Evernote. However, in July, Bending Spoons let go of most of its U.S. and Chile Evernote workforce in favor of moving work on the note-taking app to Europe.

Read on AppleInsider

stuke

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

auxio

stuke said:

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

Unfortunately that's the reality most software companies have come to: you have continual costs of development & support, and it's impossible to continually pay those costs when you only charge once. They used to try charging for major upgrades, but many customers would simply stay on the same version they originally purchased forever and never pay again. Hence why the subscription model started.

That said, if they're not adding any new features/refinements to the software and still collecting those subscription fees, customers definitely have a right to be angry. Not sure who is to blame for that (a disgruntled team and/or management reallocating them to other projects), but it's not surprising that a subscription product which has languished for 2 years isn't doing well.

wonkothesane

auxio said:

stuke said:

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

Unfortunately that's the reality most software companies have come to: you have continual costs of development & support, and it's impossible to continually pay those costs when you only charge once. They used to try charging for major upgrades, but many customers would simply stay on the same version they originally purchased forever and never pay again. Hence why the subscription model started.

That said, if they're not adding any new features/refinements to the software and still collecting those subscription fees, customers definitely have a right to be angry. Not sure who is to blame for that (a disgruntled team and/or management reallocating them to other projects), but it's not surprising that a subscription product which has languished for 2 years isn't doing well.

I have a different view on this: One-time purchases have worked fine over many years and decades. Specifically, on the smartphone platform, upon App Store launch prices were ridiculously low in comparisoni to “non mobile”. In addition, updates came flying in basically all the time. I have a hard time to imagine that this is sustainable business model (part from fat apps whose creators likely don’t care). Once way out could be to raise prices to a reasonable level. Instead greed kicks in and SaaS is something every VC is telling a startup to think about when they have the idea for a cool proiduct. Why let customers pay once if you can milk them forever? Apps, bikes, cars, everything tends to be connected and subscription based. (Apart form that: ever thought about what happens if e.g. van of goes bankrupt and your e-bike turns into an. Expensive piece of decoration?). Same with cable cutting. The hailbringing stremaing services step by step turn into the same rip-off services customers wanted to run away from. 
I say: Let me pay once a fair price for a product, not little by little have consumers pay more for less. My 2cts.

Kierkegaarden

Not surprised.  When they were bought, switched to a sub model, and changed their privacy policy — I knew this was the beginning of the end.  Waste of money.  If you’re developing an app — run the numbers and determine up front what it will take for you to stay in business.  If that means a sub model, then tell me now before I invest in your app.

Honkers

Kierkegaarden said:

If you’re developing an app — run the numbers and determine up front what it will take for you to stay in business.  If that means a sub model, then tell me now before I invest in your app.

All they need to do is something that's basically impossible and then you'll be happy.  Got it.

Kierkegaarden

Honkers said:

Kierkegaarden said:

If you’re developing an app — run the numbers and determine up front what it will take for you to stay in business.  If that means a sub model, then tell me now before I invest in your app.

All they need to do is something that's basically impossible and then you'll be happy.  Got it.

Basically impossible?  Do you not understand what a business plan is?  Charging nothing or little while banking losses with the hope that someday in the future you’ll make a profit — this “strategy” may work temporarily, until it doesn’t.  

danox

Kierkegaarden said:

Honkers said:

Kierkegaarden said:

If you’re developing an app — run the numbers and determine up front what it will take for you to stay in business.  If that means a sub model, then tell me now before I invest in your app.

All they need to do is something that's basically impossible and then you'll be happy.  Got it.

Basically impossible?  Do you not understand what a business plan is?  Charging nothing or little while banking losses with the hope that someday in the future you’ll make a profit — this “strategy” may work temporarily, until it doesn’t.  

Your advice is basically no different than living within your means at a personal level, businesses obviously have to do the same. Which ties into at personal level, how many subscriptions do you think you can have tied into your bank account? I would think that not many, which goes back to the question of why do so many of these businesses, think that the general public is going to be able tie into them with a subscription, in short there is a limit. (mine is four)

Calamander

It's true that it's impossible to live on one time purchases in the app store. 

It's just not a good business model to have ongoing costs and a one time sale. 

That's why all apps have now switched to subscription, and those who haven't will be out of business eventually - in a year, in 3 years but they will be out of business eventually. 

I personally hate subscriptions for the same reason app store publishers love them - I will end up paying monthly fees for something I don't use. 

I think Apple could solve this problem by removing one time purchases and replacing it with a 1 year subscription for the same price. 

Then, if I keep using the app, I pay - but not too much, only like 5.99 or whatever I paid, per year. If I don't keep using the app, I don't pay. 

App developers then have an incentive to improve their apps, customers get fair deals since a 1 year subscription is basically the same as owning the app - after all an app needs to be updated, and the same version won't be there for an entire year. 

So a one time purchase would then be a 1 year purchase, and after 1 year, maybe users are asked if they want to continue, or the app store uses usage data to make the call of what you would likely want. 

I imagine a very good, default, logical user interface for this, that would solve the problem. 

I have paid for some apps where it was a loss - I never use these apps anymore. 

Some other apps, I bought one time, and used them for 7 years nonstop, never paying a dime more. 

Minecraft comes to mind. I bought Minecraft pocket for $4.99 right when it came out on iPhone. And then both my kids were using it every day for years to come - it made no sense, something that provides THIS much value, I would gladly pay more for. I mean I know they're now owned by Microsoft and not exactly hurting from that but... it was strange I never had to pay ever again. 

Other apps didn't provide nearly as much value and got more, or similar. 

timmillea

I simply  won't touch anything with a subscription except basic utilities (gas, electric etc.) If it is a magazine sub, I will take their-loss leader and note in my calendar when I must cancel. Apps on a sub are like gym membership for most - you go once or twice then pay forever. With app subs it can be even worse - stop paying and you lose access to your content, at least in its original form.

Secondly, it is foolish to disband the original development team. There is a vast amount of undocumented knowledge that an app depends upon for its continued, successful evolution. The standard approach is to plan a total re-write with a new dynamic team to a 'higher spec and/or performance' only to find the developer doesn't have time or money to do it and so starts adding bits and replacing modules piecemeal instead. The whole thing starts to get buggy and no end of regular updates ever gets it close to the original user experience - its USP. Customers switch to a new entrant without all these legacy issues and at a lower price for their needs. 

It has happened countless times in software history. The key to the maintenance/update phase of a product's lifecycle is to keep the original developers - beyond their retirement if necessary. 

I imagine many will be shorting 'Bending Spoons'.

melgross

It’s very simple. When you sell your company, no matter the agreement, you lose all control over the future. I can tell you that from experience. Additionally, let’s face it, Blackmagic killed that app and a number of less well known ones. Apple gets blamed for doing that, but this is reality.

auxio

wonkothesane said:

auxio said:

stuke said:

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

Unfortunately that's the reality most software companies have come to: you have continual costs of development & support, and it's impossible to continually pay those costs when you only charge once. They used to try charging for major upgrades, but many customers would simply stay on the same version they originally purchased forever and never pay again. Hence why the subscription model started.

That said, if they're not adding any new features/refinements to the software and still collecting those subscription fees, customers definitely have a right to be angry. Not sure who is to blame for that (a disgruntled team and/or management reallocating them to other projects), but it's not surprising that a subscription product which has languished for 2 years isn't doing well.

I have a different view on this: One-time purchases have worked fine over many years and decades. Specifically, on the smartphone platform,

Here's the differences between a smartphone platform and an app:

• When you create a smartphone "platform" you also get to sell additional things which are consumed or created on that "platform". Things like Apple One subscriptions, TV subscriptions, music subscriptions, etc, etc. You also get a cut from app developers who sell their products on your "platform". So that one time sale of a platform also guarantees future, recurring sales.
• The physical components of hardware eventually wear out or become outdated. For instance, the battery on a phone only has so much longevity. Or the CPU/RAM/storage become too slow for modern features like AI and whatnot. With apps, there's nothing physical to wear out.

Look, I get the "value for money" side of things. I'm the same way: I prefer paying once and not continually. That said, software isn't like physical objects, which typically have a lifespan that's unavoidable (and thus the manufacturer is guaranteed a future sale at some point).

And as for saying that the one-time sale model has worked well for ages already, just take a look at the software companies which have lasted longer than 25 years: most of them built "platforms" not "apps" (Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc). The companies which only build apps (like Adobe) have either gone to a subscription model or gone out of business.

danox

auxio said:

wonkothesane said:

auxio said:

stuke said:

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

Unfortunately that's the reality most software companies have come to: you have continual costs of development & support, and it's impossible to continually pay those costs when you only charge once. They used to try charging for major upgrades, but many customers would simply stay on the same version they originally purchased forever and never pay again. Hence why the subscription model started.

That said, if they're not adding any new features/refinements to the software and still collecting those subscription fees, customers definitely have a right to be angry. Not sure who is to blame for that (a disgruntled team and/or management reallocating them to other projects), but it's not surprising that a subscription product which has languished for 2 years isn't doing well.

I have a different view on this: One-time purchases have worked fine over many years and decades. Specifically, on the smartphone platform,

Here's the differences between a smartphone platform and an app:

• When you create a smartphone "platform" you also get to sell additional things which are consumed or created on that "platform". Things like Apple One subscriptions, TV subscriptions, music subscriptions, etc, etc. You also get a cut from app developers who sell their products on your "platform". So that one time sale of a platform also guarantees future, recurring sales.
• The physical components of hardware eventually wear out or become outdated. For instance, the battery on a phone only has so much longevity. Or the CPU/RAM/storage become too slow for modern features like AI and whatnot. With apps, there's nothing physical to wear out.

Look, I get the "value for money" side of things. I'm the same way: I prefer paying once and not continually. That said, software isn't like physical objects, which typically have a lifespan that's unavoidable (and thus the manufacturer is guaranteed a future sale at some point).

And as for saying that the one-time sale model has worked well for ages already, just take a look at the software companies which have lasted longer than 25 years: most of them built "platforms" not "apps" (Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc). The companies which only build apps (like Adobe) have either gone to a subscription model or gone out of business.

In the case of Adobe or Quark platform is another name for inertia, there are some great programs/companies have come up in the last few years, be it Affinity, Notability, Goodnotes, or Figma (which Adobe is trying to buyout), hopefully the UK regulators will block that. How do you build a tech base in the UK if you sell out at all opportunity?

melgross

Following this discussion I see some interesting points. So I would like to point out that nany founders, whether the company is small or grows aignificantly, have the hope that some big company will come along and offer them a pot load if money for it. Sometimes the are contracted to stay in for a bit and help integrate, and sometimes they leave right away. Rarely, they end up running the whole thing.

but once bought, the company is finished. It may end up as va division, or just a design team, or even, the employees get distributed around and the product, if any, is worked on by people working on a similar product, but now with the new technology. However it may work, if the competition comes out with a free product that’s almost as good, it could destroy the paid fir product the gave. We saw that with Netscape and IE. when Microsoft couldn’t sell IE, they gave it away, and that destroyed Netscape, along with the fact that IE was included, and every time you restarted your PC, IE would reject Netscape as your preferred browser. People got so tired of fighting that they gave in. It also destroyed Netscape’s internet server business as companies that were using Netscape’s browser used their server software. When the browser business went away, so did their server software business.

at any rate, after that long soliloquy, the point is, we’re seeing that here. I imagine the company looked at spending more money to bring the app up to and possibly beyond what Blackmagic had, but decided it would cost too much and it would be uncertain as to whether it would succeed. Not too surprising really, as pretty much everyone has been saying good by to Filmic Pro for several months now.

tundraboy

danox said:

auxio said:

wonkothesane said:

auxio said:

stuke said:

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

Unfortunately that's the reality most software companies have come to: you have continual costs of development & support, and it's impossible to continually pay those costs when you only charge once. They used to try charging for major upgrades, but many customers would simply stay on the same version they originally purchased forever and never pay again. Hence why the subscription model started.

That said, if they're not adding any new features/refinements to the software and still collecting those subscription fees, customers definitely have a right to be angry. Not sure who is to blame for that (a disgruntled team and/or management reallocating them to other projects), but it's not surprising that a subscription product which has languished for 2 years isn't doing well.

I have a different view on this: One-time purchases have worked fine over many years and decades. Specifically, on the smartphone platform,

Here's the differences between a smartphone platform and an app:

• When you create a smartphone "platform" you also get to sell additional things which are consumed or created on that "platform". Things like Apple One subscriptions, TV subscriptions, music subscriptions, etc, etc. You also get a cut from app developers who sell their products on your "platform". So that one time sale of a platform also guarantees future, recurring sales.
• The physical components of hardware eventually wear out or become outdated. For instance, the battery on a phone only has so much longevity. Or the CPU/RAM/storage become too slow for modern features like AI and whatnot. With apps, there's nothing physical to wear out.

Look, I get the "value for money" side of things. I'm the same way: I prefer paying once and not continually. That said, software isn't like physical objects, which typically have a lifespan that's unavoidable (and thus the manufacturer is guaranteed a future sale at some point).

And as for saying that the one-time sale model has worked well for ages already, just take a look at the software companies which have lasted longer than 25 years: most of them built "platforms" not "apps" (Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc). The companies which only build apps (like Adobe) have either gone to a subscription model or gone out of business.

In the case of Adobe or Quark platform is another name for inertia, there are some great programs/companies have come up in the last few years, be it Affinity, Notability, Goodnotes, or Figma (which Adobe is trying to buyout), hopefully the UK regulators will block that. How do you build a tech base in the UK if you sell out at all opportunity?

Apple can afford to offer pay once, use forever for FCPX because yes you can use it forever but eventually you'll have to buy a new machine from them.  To them FCPX is the cost of customer loyalty.  The cost of FCPX maintenance and development, as with Apple's office suite, is built into the price of Apple's hardware.

Some software are pay once up front, but you can't use it forever because down the line they will come out with an update that you have to pay for.  Maybe the upgrade cost is lower than buying new (for you) but we can't blame them for charging for an upgrade, especially if their user base has plateaued -- maintenance and development costs still have to be paid.  An apparent exception is Vuescan, but that's basically a one man operation and last I noticed, there's internet talk of 'other ways to support Vuescan'.  So it looks like the guy is starting to feel the squeeze too.

Now it's reasonable to say that Adobe's switch to SaaS is purely out of greed, as they are able to do this only because their Photo suite has become an industry standard and thus they can charge monopolistic prices because if you want to work in the printing, publishing and related industries, industry practice says you have no choice but to use Adobe.

For smaller app devs though, competition is very fierce; and whether you charge once or by subscription is not determined by the desire to extract monopoly profits but the more immediate desire to just plain survive.

danox

tundraboy said:

danox said:

auxio said:

wonkothesane said:

auxio said:

stuke said:

What a shame.  When Filmic Pro went to Bending Spoons, the legacy community of Pro users revolted...see the app ratings...as their bought once app went to subscriptions (weekly, really?).  A year later, we read/hear this.  Here's hoping Barham gathers the original, brilliant Filmic crew, starts a new company, and rebuilds the loyalty with a new set of IP behind a new videography tool, reminiscent of the original Filmic.  I'm sure there are NDA and IP implications to making Filmic Pro, Filmic Pro again; however, I'm praying the originals can come back as a phoenix and go back to the non-lease-ware/non-rent-ware/non-subscription way of business!  I'm waiting.

Unfortunately that's the reality most software companies have come to: you have continual costs of development & support, and it's impossible to continually pay those costs when you only charge once. They used to try charging for major upgrades, but many customers would simply stay on the same version they originally purchased forever and never pay again. Hence why the subscription model started.

That said, if they're not adding any new features/refinements to the software and still collecting those subscription fees, customers definitely have a right to be angry. Not sure who is to blame for that (a disgruntled team and/or management reallocating them to other projects), but it's not surprising that a subscription product which has languished for 2 years isn't doing well.

I have a different view on this: One-time purchases have worked fine over many years and decades. Specifically, on the smartphone platform,

Here's the differences between a smartphone platform and an app:

• When you create a smartphone "platform" you also get to sell additional things which are consumed or created on that "platform". Things like Apple One subscriptions, TV subscriptions, music subscriptions, etc, etc. You also get a cut from app developers who sell their products on your "platform". So that one time sale of a platform also guarantees future, recurring sales.
• The physical components of hardware eventually wear out or become outdated. For instance, the battery on a phone only has so much longevity. Or the CPU/RAM/storage become too slow for modern features like AI and whatnot. With apps, there's nothing physical to wear out.

Look, I get the "value for money" side of things. I'm the same way: I prefer paying once and not continually. That said, software isn't like physical objects, which typically have a lifespan that's unavoidable (and thus the manufacturer is guaranteed a future sale at some point).

And as for saying that the one-time sale model has worked well for ages already, just take a look at the software companies which have lasted longer than 25 years: most of them built "platforms" not "apps" (Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc). The companies which only build apps (like Adobe) have either gone to a subscription model or gone out of business.

In the case of Adobe or Quark platform is another name for inertia, there are some great programs/companies have come up in the last few years, be it Affinity, Notability, Goodnotes, or Figma (which Adobe is trying to buyout), hopefully the UK regulators will block that. How do you build a tech base in the UK if you sell out at all opportunity?

Apple can afford to offer pay once, use forever for FCPX because yes you can use it forever but eventually you'll have to buy a new machine from them.  To them FCPX is the cost of customer loyalty.  The cost of FCPX maintenance and development, as with Apple's office suite, is built into the price of Apple's hardware.

Some software are pay once up front, but you can't use it forever because down the line they will come out with an update that you have to pay for.  Maybe the upgrade cost is lower than buying new (for you) but we can't blame them for charging for an upgrade, especially if their user base has plateaued -- maintenance and development costs still have to be paid.  An apparent exception is Vuescan, but that's basically a one man operation and last I noticed, there's internet talk of 'other ways to support Vuescan'.  So it looks like the guy is starting to feel the squeeze too.

Now it's reasonable to say that Adobe's switch to SaaS is purely out of greed, as they are able to do this only because their Photo suite has become an industry standard and thus they can charge monopolistic prices because if you want to work in the printing, publishing and related industries, industry practice says you have no choice but to use Adobe.

For smaller app devs though, competition is very fierce; and whether you charge once or by subscription is not determined by the desire to extract monopoly profits but the more immediate desire to just plain survive.

DaVinci Resolve was able to carve out a niche spot because Apple still charged a reasonable price for Final Cut Pro, however when Apple cut the price of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote to nothing Apple definitely hurt a lot of small to medium size companies in the Word processing and Spreadsheet areas of the market, Apple has to be careful to leave a little bit of a cushion for third-party developers, unless you just want those third-party developers to be just gatekeepers Microsoft and Google, which is basically what you will end up with if you’re not careful about offering a zero price product to the public.

melgross

I basically agree with Calamander. When Apple first came out with the idea of buy once and get updates forever, it was a brilliant idea. The reason is that these new smartphones were growing sales at an enormous tempo. So app developers could see their base growing significantly every year. In the double digits and likely 30% or more. But with cell phone growth of both Android and iOS slowing, and coming to a virtual halt as the market becomes saturated, that growth in their sales has also slowed down. 

So we first saw free apps with in app purchases in Android, because Android users were, and are, reluctant to buy apps. That was much less of a problem in iOS. But it was adopted here as well. The problem is that there is no real “pay for upgrade” model. But you can pay for modules. I don’t know if a developer can say; “Here’s a new module, it’s $5.” But in reality, it replaces your software with a new version. If they can do that, then I don’t see a problem. If you want to upgrade, you do. If you don’t, you don’t.

but honestly, even though I do pay for some software subscriptions, sometimes I feel as though it’s blackmail with some developers. Why? Because they have proprietary files and if you stop subscribing, you can’t use them anymore. I try not to get that software.

what Apple is doing with FCP for iOS is fine. Buy once at what I believe is a fair price, or pay monthly only when you need it, or yearly. Seems good. But some duncecaps think $5 a month only when you need it is a ripoff. It’s not.

but the problem with Filmic Pro isn’t that they wanted more money in a sub. It’s that, as I mentioned earlier, Blackmagic destroyed their app and every other video app with a better app that’s free. Free will always destroy paid if it’s even close in quality. If it’s significantly better, there’s just no question.