Being vocal is great, rating a good app 1 star en masse is pathetic. Rate it 3 stars and say why.
It's not fair to compare this to iOS. If Apple completely redesigned the phone for some quantum processor (yes, I made that up) in the future then maybe it would have to be completely reengineered and miss some features at release. If you can see the medium/long-term benefits then you have patience with the developers. Also, iOS is used by 100m people. FCP just is simply a more niche piece of software with more specialist requirements.
I'm just asking for some even-handed reasoning and some patience.
Hey, I didn't rate it on the App Store. Not sure why you think that? And I'm not sure why you're going out of your way here to defend Apple, this is a simple, frustrating, criticism. The end.
I guess they just can't do anything wrong in some peoples books.
I'm viewing this from a distance. Video isn't my specialty. But reading such polar opposite opinions about FCX, this all strikes me as a great object lesson in why bloatware wins out in the market. Some people don't care about new features (no matter how revolutionary) nearly as much as they care about the loss of one or two functions they've gotten used to.
Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.
That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites? Could they use FCPX? Of course. Would they choose it if they felt Apple had never been in a broadcast pro edit room? And would be slow to add pro broadcast support?
I assume that for all the power users who need the features of FCP7 will just continue to use the old software.
Since FCPX is only $299 it is cheap enough to try it out and learn the new software whilst still using FCP7 for your main work flow.
We all know Apple is makes quantum leaps with their software and OSes. It provides for faster evolution and less baggage but sometimes it takes a while to get the new versions up to snuff.
It is never easy re-writing software, especially when users aren't used to change. How many mistakes has Apple made? Not very many. The people complaining either have old hardware, or they don't want to change after 10 years. It's a win-no win situation that will blow over just like when Apple came out with iMovie '08.
I appreciate the change, it keeps me up to date and ahead of the people that don't want to learn anything new. I make more money that way.
Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.
That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.
It's how one reacts that defines being a "cry baby". Do you truly think that Apple won't add this?
Quote:
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites?
It's how one reacts that defines being a "cry baby". Do you truly think that Apple won't add this?
I don't think Apple has its finger on the pulse of that niche, no. They often design software that seems to have been created by a team that doesn't need to use the software. The recent version of iMovie is a testament to that. I think they will happily market it to a lower niche. Nothing wrong with that. It's just half the tool it used to be, for a different user base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
"Quote:
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites?"
... in fact I love radical changes to software, it's enjoyable learning the ropes and figuring out a better way of doing things with new tech/UI elements. But here it's not that, but Apple stripping away basic industry-standard features.
It appears that people are not grasping the nature of FCPX. It's NOT a software update of Final Cut, it's an ENTIRELY NEW APPLICATION. Apple did not "strip out" features, they were never there to strip out! The fact that it looks somewhat like iMovie is probably because it started from the iMovie code base!
A lot of the people criticizing the criticizers in here don't seem to professional editors or work in post-production pipelines. What people are complaining about is the lack of fundamental features for working in a broadcast, film, or professional post environment. Obviously version 1.0 of most software is lacking in features. But we're talking about Apple making professional claims for a piece of post production software that is clearly unable to live up to those claims. It's not about learning a new system. It's about being unable to do professional work with the system provided.
So yes, people in post facilities will hold off on this release. But the reason there is a lot of frustration is that FCP 7 has been out for about two years now. This is software that is not optimized for 64-bit systems. A lot of editors and post houses were excited of the prospect of their preferred post software being brought into the present in terms of system adaptations, speed and features. And this is what Apple teased. Instead, they were given a piece of software that is essentially useless in a professional post facility and most user's workflows. Workflows that have been created and modified over seven versions of the software suite for many studios.
Each successive release has bolstered the Apple-loving production community and made it easier and cheaper for post houses to do the work that they love and make a living. I think a lot of these people, myself included, feel like Apple completely disregarded the investment made into their products and systems. The least they could have done was create a transitional period, as John Gruber points out in this article.
All in all, I think this post by a well-respected, and long-time member of the professional post community, Walter Biscardi, of Creative Cow sums it up best. I highly recommend everyone confused by the backlash to give it a read.
I bet a lot of professionals are going to skip this release and wait to see what happens in the future. There are so many missing features it's difficult to understand how this actually got released as a "PRO" product.
If you're a pro and you feel the need to talk to clients about your workflow, then you're not a pro.
jlandd is not saying here that they "talk to clients about [their] workflow." To me, this is more along the lines of, "Sorry [client], we can't take in that OMF you've brought us of a rough sound edit. And we can't bring in that XML from your rough edit done on set. And we won't be able to output an OMF for you to bring to the sound mixer for final audio."
That is having to "tell the client to lower their expectations of what you can work with."
All in all, I think this post by a well-respected, and long-time member of the professional post community, Walter Biscardi, of Creative Cow sums it up best. I highly recommend everyone confused by the backlash to give it a read.
Biscardi's is indeed a well respected member of the FCP community however he along with so many other editors are failing to grasp what was obvious to to Mac geeks a while ago.
1. Apple killed Carbon 64 bit two years ago. At that time they basically told the development community that legacy API like quicktime weren't going to make the 64-bit transition and begin to learn the new (successor) API.
2. Larry Jordan was told by his contacts that Apple plans to release more substantive updates through the Mac App Store on a more aggressive schedule. We should see feature updates happen more frequently.
3. Different codebase and modern API means Apple can evolve the product faster than the old legacy stuff so while the jump from FCP 6 to 7 wasn't huge it has no bearing on the type of substantive updates that could happen even in minor point releases to FCPX.
Between Hodgetts and Jordan we've heard that an improved XML workflow is coming, Multicam is coming and more stuff. Jordan says he expects most editors to move to FCPX in about 18 months which sounds about right once the other stuff gets put in.
Today's frustration is valid but a bit short sighted. FCS didn't stop working upon the announcement of FCPX.
Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi! (The King is dead, long live the king!)
I see this new FCP as something NEW, the way is set, the new features, price, etc It is revolutionary!
I conferenced with my partner, although we know that some features are missing, we took the leap to embrace the new.
I understand the panic, I am on the other hand excited it is a NEW product that will keep evolving, but already is a better/different/more with the times product when comparing the old FCP, and with more potential to grow!
This FCP is a more apple-like product than the old one, it is why it may have some "Ala" Imovie feelings, not because it is an Imovie in steroids, but because it is an apple product!
IF you bought it, allow yourself to experience the new FCP, even if you have to start on square one buying Steve Martin or others trainings, if you are too nervous to try, stay where you are now, and just wait...
Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi! (The King is dead, long live the king!)
Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.
That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites? Could they use FCPX? Of course. Would they choose it if they felt Apple had never been in a broadcast pro edit room? And would be slow to add pro broadcast support?
I didn't call anybody a crybaby. Just trying to understand. But it can be very hard as an outsider to see these seemingly polarized debates, without wondering "Is the missing feature actually critical, or does it merely seem so because it's the one you're used to?" The example you gave sounds like the former, if I understand you correctly. I also find myself wondering why, if these are such glaring omissions, did it get past the video pros who reportedly had access to it before it was announced. The example I remember seeing was a car commercial. What was he doing different that he didn't need these features enough to kick up a fuss?
I'm one of those 'idiots' who buy the software when it's laughed. We 'idiots' are needed to provide Apple with bug reports and feedback in order for you 'normal people' to use apps in its full glory.
If there were no 'idiots', you probably had a buggy Lion or FCPX after 6 months, or a year. Eventually someone needs to use it. These 'idiots' are often enthusiasts waiting for innovation and they have the right to expect a certain level of software refinement.
I am very glad I bought FCPX because every annoying part of FCP7 has been fixed and vastly improved. Unfortunately the app has been crashing on me when my edit was around 10 minutes, but it always recovered to the last state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.
I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.
last week i would have agreed with you but have you seen this app? it's really imovie. avid and adobe look sexy all of the sudden....
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
So many whiners and complainers bitching and moaning. What a bunch of little babies.
Just use the older version. No one is telling you you can't.
99.9 percent of clients have no clue what you're using and honestly could care less if the end product looks good.
Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.
I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.
I mean are you gonna go back to Avid? Of course not. So just relax.
There are a lot of folks here saying that professional editors who complain about FCX are "bitching and moaning". This seems to be coming from a lack of understanding just how fundamental the things that are missing are. I get that, professional editors are a minority - even amongst those who purchase Final Cut Pro.
However, as a member of that minority, I've cut award winning music videos, commercials, feature films, and documentaries, and I have to tell you - FCX is not a professional package. This is not bias against the user interface changes or having to learn a new system. It's about what Apple left behind in it's pursuit of the prosumer market place.
All those feature films Apple likes to point out were cut in Final Cut Pro - The Social Network, Cold Mountain, True Grit, etc - could never be edited with FCX. Why? Because feature films, like most high end productions, are a collaboration. I'm sure FCX has the potential to be a fine tool, however right now, it's a closed system. It may be fine as an end-to-end solution if you use DSLR or AVCHD (but not the RED Camera yet).
Most importantly, though, is that "closed system" part. It is a program unto itself. With no ability to import or export EDLs, XML, OMF, or even FCP's old projects, and no ability to map audio or video tracks, there's no way to collaborate with others.
I just finished a Scion commercial in Final Cut Pro 7 - I didn't do the effects, they were done on a Flame. Guess what I gave the EFx house? EDLS - of all my elements that made up each effects shot split onto separate video tracks so the effects artist could pull those same elements in at high resolution and spend hours carefully assembling each shot in high end effects software. (If you do not know, an EDL or Edit Decision List is 30 year old technology that essentially is a text file consisting of a structured list of timecodes detailing the timecode of the start and stop of each shot. It's old technology, but it's the glue that allows the many elements that make up an edit to be dealt with by a wide variety of systems).
And I split all my audio and output OMFs (industry standard audio interchange file) and gave them to the audio mixer who cleaned up the audio and added effects and did a 5.1 surround sound mix, etc...
And this was just for a 30 second commercial. None of this is possible with FCX. You cannot assign video or audio to specific tracks, you cannot export your audio elements. This is very basic stuff for the broadcast professional.
Right now FCX feels crippled - closed off from the rest of broadcast post. Maybe with time it will learn how to play well with others, but as of now I don't think it's a broadcast pro product. And while FCX is "learning" how to become a professional, Apple have pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio from their stores, as if they're saying "I don't care what you need, you'll use what we want you to or leave". This means I can't add any more FCP stations or expand my business unless I switch over to Avid or Adobe.
Comments
Being vocal is great, rating a good app 1 star en masse is pathetic. Rate it 3 stars and say why.
It's not fair to compare this to iOS. If Apple completely redesigned the phone for some quantum processor (yes, I made that up) in the future then maybe it would have to be completely reengineered and miss some features at release. If you can see the medium/long-term benefits then you have patience with the developers. Also, iOS is used by 100m people. FCP just is simply a more niche piece of software with more specialist requirements.
I'm just asking for some even-handed reasoning and some patience.
Hey, I didn't rate it on the App Store. Not sure why you think that? And I'm not sure why you're going out of your way here to defend Apple, this is a simple, frustrating, criticism. The end.
I guess they just can't do anything wrong in some peoples books.
I'm viewing this from a distance. Video isn't my specialty. But reading such polar opposite opinions about FCX, this all strikes me as a great object lesson in why bloatware wins out in the market. Some people don't care about new features (no matter how revolutionary) nearly as much as they care about the loss of one or two functions they've gotten used to.
Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.
That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites? Could they use FCPX? Of course. Would they choose it if they felt Apple had never been in a broadcast pro edit room? And would be slow to add pro broadcast support?
Since FCPX is only $299 it is cheap enough to try it out and learn the new software whilst still using FCP7 for your main work flow.
We all know Apple is makes quantum leaps with their software and OSes. It provides for faster evolution and less baggage but sometimes it takes a while to get the new versions up to snuff.
I appreciate the change, it keeps me up to date and ahead of the people that don't want to learn anything new. I make more money that way.
Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.
That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.
It's how one reacts that defines being a "cry baby". Do you truly think that Apple won't add this?
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites?
Does this apply to you?
It's how one reacts that defines being a "cry baby". Do you truly think that Apple won't add this?
I don't think Apple has its finger on the pulse of that niche, no. They often design software that seems to have been created by a team that doesn't need to use the software. The recent version of iMovie is a testament to that. I think they will happily market it to a lower niche. Nothing wrong with that. It's just half the tool it used to be, for a different user base.
"Quote:
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites?"
Does this apply to you?
Nope.
... in fact I love radical changes to software, it's enjoyable learning the ropes and figuring out a better way of doing things with new tech/UI elements. But here it's not that, but Apple stripping away basic industry-standard features.
It appears that people are not grasping the nature of FCPX. It's NOT a software update of Final Cut, it's an ENTIRELY NEW APPLICATION. Apple did not "strip out" features, they were never there to strip out! The fact that it looks somewhat like iMovie is probably because it started from the iMovie code base!
So yes, people in post facilities will hold off on this release. But the reason there is a lot of frustration is that FCP 7 has been out for about two years now. This is software that is not optimized for 64-bit systems. A lot of editors and post houses were excited of the prospect of their preferred post software being brought into the present in terms of system adaptations, speed and features. And this is what Apple teased. Instead, they were given a piece of software that is essentially useless in a professional post facility and most user's workflows. Workflows that have been created and modified over seven versions of the software suite for many studios.
Each successive release has bolstered the Apple-loving production community and made it easier and cheaper for post houses to do the work that they love and make a living. I think a lot of these people, myself included, feel like Apple completely disregarded the investment made into their products and systems. The least they could have done was create a transitional period, as John Gruber points out in this article.
All in all, I think this post by a well-respected, and long-time member of the professional post community, Walter Biscardi, of Creative Cow sums it up best. I highly recommend everyone confused by the backlash to give it a read.
The issue is that when you run a "pro" creative business you don't tell the client to lower their expectations of what you can work with.
If you're a pro and you feel the need to talk to clients about your workflow, then you're not a pro.
If you're a pro and you feel the need to talk to clients about your workflow, then you're not a pro.
jlandd is not saying here that they "talk to clients about [their] workflow." To me, this is more along the lines of, "Sorry [client], we can't take in that OMF you've brought us of a rough sound edit. And we can't bring in that XML from your rough edit done on set. And we won't be able to output an OMF for you to bring to the sound mixer for final audio."
That is having to "tell the client to lower their expectations of what you can work with."
Close reading can be a valuable thing jeffhrsn.
All in all, I think this post by a well-respected, and long-time member of the professional post community, Walter Biscardi, of Creative Cow sums it up best. I highly recommend everyone confused by the backlash to give it a read.
Biscardi's is indeed a well respected member of the FCP community however he along with so many other editors are failing to grasp what was obvious to to Mac geeks a while ago.
1. Apple killed Carbon 64 bit two years ago. At that time they basically told the development community that legacy API like quicktime weren't going to make the 64-bit transition and begin to learn the new (successor) API.
2. Larry Jordan was told by his contacts that Apple plans to release more substantive updates through the Mac App Store on a more aggressive schedule. We should see feature updates happen more frequently.
3. Different codebase and modern API means Apple can evolve the product faster than the old legacy stuff so while the jump from FCP 6 to 7 wasn't huge it has no bearing on the type of substantive updates that could happen even in minor point releases to FCPX.
Between Hodgetts and Jordan we've heard that an improved XML workflow is coming, Multicam is coming and more stuff. Jordan says he expects most editors to move to FCPX in about 18 months which sounds about right once the other stuff gets put in.
Today's frustration is valid but a bit short sighted. FCS didn't stop working upon the announcement of FCPX.
I see this new FCP as something NEW, the way is set, the new features, price, etc It is revolutionary!
I conferenced with my partner, although we know that some features are missing, we took the leap to embrace the new.
I understand the panic, I am on the other hand excited it is a NEW product that will keep evolving, but already is a better/different/more with the times product when comparing the old FCP, and with more potential to grow!
This FCP is a more apple-like product than the old one, it is why it may have some "Ala" Imovie feelings, not because it is an Imovie in steroids, but because it is an apple product!
IF you bought it, allow yourself to experience the new FCP, even if you have to start on square one buying Steve Martin or others trainings, if you are too nervous to try, stay where you are now, and just wait...
Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi! (The King is dead, long live the king!)
George
Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.
That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites? Could they use FCPX? Of course. Would they choose it if they felt Apple had never been in a broadcast pro edit room? And would be slow to add pro broadcast support?
I didn't call anybody a crybaby. Just trying to understand. But it can be very hard as an outsider to see these seemingly polarized debates, without wondering "Is the missing feature actually critical, or does it merely seem so because it's the one you're used to?" The example you gave sounds like the former, if I understand you correctly. I also find myself wondering why, if these are such glaring omissions, did it get past the video pros who reportedly had access to it before it was announced. The example I remember seeing was a car commercial. What was he doing different that he didn't need these features enough to kick up a fuss?
If there were no 'idiots', you probably had a buggy Lion or FCPX after 6 months, or a year. Eventually someone needs to use it. These 'idiots' are often enthusiasts waiting for innovation and they have the right to expect a certain level of software refinement.
I am very glad I bought FCPX because every annoying part of FCP7 has been fixed and vastly improved. Unfortunately the app has been crashing on me when my edit was around 10 minutes, but it always recovered to the last state.
Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.
I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.
So many whiners and complainers bitching and moaning. What a bunch of little babies.
Just use the older version. No one is telling you you can't.
99.9 percent of clients have no clue what you're using and honestly could care less if the end product looks good.
Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.
I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.
I mean are you gonna go back to Avid? Of course not. So just relax.
I actually used it for a client project and I think it's wonderful.
Who cares about the iMovie similarities? Does that turn it into a bad app?
last week i would have agreed with you but have you seen this app? it's really imovie. avid and adobe look sexy all of the sudden....
However, as a member of that minority, I've cut award winning music videos, commercials, feature films, and documentaries, and I have to tell you - FCX is not a professional package. This is not bias against the user interface changes or having to learn a new system. It's about what Apple left behind in it's pursuit of the prosumer market place.
All those feature films Apple likes to point out were cut in Final Cut Pro - The Social Network, Cold Mountain, True Grit, etc - could never be edited with FCX. Why? Because feature films, like most high end productions, are a collaboration. I'm sure FCX has the potential to be a fine tool, however right now, it's a closed system. It may be fine as an end-to-end solution if you use DSLR or AVCHD (but not the RED Camera yet).
Most importantly, though, is that "closed system" part. It is a program unto itself. With no ability to import or export EDLs, XML, OMF, or even FCP's old projects, and no ability to map audio or video tracks, there's no way to collaborate with others.
I just finished a Scion commercial in Final Cut Pro 7 - I didn't do the effects, they were done on a Flame. Guess what I gave the EFx house? EDLS - of all my elements that made up each effects shot split onto separate video tracks so the effects artist could pull those same elements in at high resolution and spend hours carefully assembling each shot in high end effects software. (If you do not know, an EDL or Edit Decision List is 30 year old technology that essentially is a text file consisting of a structured list of timecodes detailing the timecode of the start and stop of each shot. It's old technology, but it's the glue that allows the many elements that make up an edit to be dealt with by a wide variety of systems).
And I split all my audio and output OMFs (industry standard audio interchange file) and gave them to the audio mixer who cleaned up the audio and added effects and did a 5.1 surround sound mix, etc...
And this was just for a 30 second commercial. None of this is possible with FCX. You cannot assign video or audio to specific tracks, you cannot export your audio elements. This is very basic stuff for the broadcast professional.
Right now FCX feels crippled - closed off from the rest of broadcast post. Maybe with time it will learn how to play well with others, but as of now I don't think it's a broadcast pro product. And while FCX is "learning" how to become a professional, Apple have pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio from their stores, as if they're saying "I don't care what you need, you'll use what we want you to or leave". This means I can't add any more FCP stations or expand my business unless I switch over to Avid or Adobe.
Which is truly a sorry state of affairs.