Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X

1246712

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 221
    kreshkresh Posts: 379member
    These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge!



    Nothing new about that though.
  • Reply 62 of 221
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kresh View Post


    These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge.



    Nothing new about that though!



    That's really not helpful and fairly asshole-ish. It's not about "pissing on Apple", it's about a realistic assessment of what Apple intends for FCP X and who it works for.



    Video pros will use whatever tools work; their's nothing personal in it. If Apple at some point changes it up and adds back in a lot of collaborative functionally and user customizability those same pros will reconsider their options. It is true that Apple has burned some bridges here, so a lot of people will want to see at least the rudiments of a roadmap before they're willing to recommit. Nevertheless, if Apple builds the best tool they'll get the users, and pointless Apple bashing (or defending) really doesn't enter into it.
  • Reply 63 of 221
    samwellsamwell Posts: 78member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    The majority of professionals don't even use tape.



    Just shut up. You're embarrassing yourself.
  • Reply 64 of 221
    samwellsamwell Posts: 78member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post


    If you say that all FCP was ever for was "offline edits" then what is your complaint exactly?



    Not one feature is finished? That's a overreaching statement. I'm sure File > Save works just fine.



    You didn't describe why FCPX (or FCP7) would be a nightmare in your workflow. You just said some technobabble about file sizes.



    LOOK HERE:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_C..._Final_Cut_Pro



    You win the award for biggest idiot on this thread!
  • Reply 65 of 221
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    The version of Quicktime in 10.6 stripped out most of the features, and almost two years later we're still waiting to get them back.



    Are they all finally restored in 10.7? Or do we have to wait even longer?



    "Just wait" wouldn't be so bad if the wait was measured in months, but for people making a living with the software, years are an awfully long time especially for an app that has already gone a couple years without update.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."



    A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.



    Bull. There are professionals who simply can't use the new software due to missing features, so it literally IS not for the professionals doing that sort of work. And things like OMF/EDL are hardly "ancient" workflows, they are still used all the time, tape or no tape. Sure, there are plenty of professionals doing lower end work that will be perfectly happy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is missing features crucial for broadcast and film work. But since you're not a professional video editor, why should anyone care what you think about the situation?
  • Reply 66 of 221
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Guys, I'm an Apple guy through and through, but I think a lot of you are still really missing the point.



    Apple is about to see a massive decline in pro edit suite market share. It has nothing to do with dinosaurs wedded to tape or old guys unwilling to learn a new paradigm. As has been described at length, this version of FCP lacks basic tools that are required for pro work flows, and there isn't much in these statements from FCP product managers that suggests that's going to get much better. Better, yes, but not good enough to qualify. It's just a stone fact; if you doubt it talk to someone who makes their living using FCP.



    These types of claims are always made when Apple makes these big transitions.



    When going from OS 9 to OS X. Articles were written were their was doubt that people would actually buy new machines and repurchase software all to support OS X. There was the feeling that people would abandon the Mac instead of going through this transition. In reality people bought more Macs than ever because of OS X.



    When going from Power PC to Intel. Articles were written about how the computer market would clearly see how over priced Macs are. Apple would be forced to sell sub-$1000 machines or else people would abandon the Mac. In reality people bought more Macs than ever before.



    Those are far larger transitions than FCP 7 to FCP X.





    Quote:

    But for pro production houses a lot of the damage is already done. Apple has signaled that they don't understand pro work flows, that they don't care about this market, and that frankly they can't be trusted to provide a stable path going forward. I'm talking about people with 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in FCP processes who have simply been cut off at the knees, with no warning whatsoever. You don't have to be some kind of Apple basher to see how destructive to loyalty that is. Look around online; large post houses are already on record as planning on switching away, either to Avid or Adobe.





    As people begin to dig into the underlying code of FCP X. They are finding that Apple has made radical and wide sweeping changes to the the architecture and file management. From a software development stand point these changes will potentially make FCP X far better than the original FCP could have ever been in its current form.



    Do you really believe Apple went through all of that effort to abandon the pro market and solely cater to the consumer?
  • Reply 67 of 221
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    I don't think there's any call for attacking people either way. FCP is a tool; it either meets the needs of a user or doesn't. It's perplexing that Apple would do such an about-face with software that has done so well in a particular market, but it's not a referendum on Apple or any particular Apple user.
  • Reply 68 of 221
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I would say more money = a better movie up to a point. From the perspective of low budget filmmaking.



    From $500,000 to $1 million. You definitely can make a better movie.



    From $1 million to $2million if you know what you are doing, you can make a better movie.



    It gets to a point where you start to run into diminishing returns. A movie that could be made for $5 million and gets a $20 million dollar budget. You're not necessarily going to make a better movie and its possible to make a worse movie.



    I agree 100%. My frame of reference is always "Lost in Translation" for a great success. I think they made it for $5 and grossed $44 mil. Opening week USA and they made back almost 1/4 of their total budget.
  • Reply 69 of 221
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kresh View Post


    These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge!



    Nothing new about that though.



    Well we can be pretty sure it isn't Randy Ubillos's fault. Since he mostly wrote the original Final Cut by himself, FCP is probably what he thought a professional editing application should look like. I never did believe Steve's keynote remarks that "One of our engineers was on vacation in the Caribbean and got the idea for a better way to edit movies. And so here it is iMovie". That was a load of crap then and this is no different. Randy, I hope, has nothing to do with this, but is simply following orders from Steve. Because if this is really Randy's idea then he has totally changed his original perspective on what makes a powerful editing application. This is just iMovie on steroids.
  • Reply 70 of 221
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Professional video editing requires a lot of collaboration. That is why shops standardize on one platform and stick to it. Occasionally there is a migration effect between versions of the same software since there are enough similarities and backwards compatibly to still share the work load across several editors without conflict. The fact that FCPX does not share anything in common with its predecessor makes it no different than introducing an Avid workstation into a Final Cut work flow. It just doesn't work. If a professional shop wanted to upgrade to FCPX they would have to do all the workstations at the same time and all editors would have to cope with the learning curve at the same time. This would essentially shut down the company and make everything done previously incompatible. That is just not something that many professional shops would consider.



    This product is designed exclusively for a solo freelancer who does not need to use any post house services or be compatible with any other software, doesn't need any plug ins, high end camera support or features such as multicam. Essentially the amateur web video editor is who this product is designed for. Which brings to mind, why did they remove FCP 7? Because Apple has this fixation with everything being part of the ecosystem and FCP did not fit. It doesn't work with iCloud or the App Store and probably has some issues with Lion for all we know. iMovie on the other hand is a perfect fit. So iMovie Pro it is. I'm glad I ordered another FCP Studio box set yesterday to hold me over.



    MSTONE! Good post and BTW I bought 2 copies.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kresh View Post


    These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge!



    Nothing new about that though.



    We DID kinda send them over the edge huh? oops. Addabox has some great thoughts, but personally I do think there is something a bit visceral in this issue to. Maybe we all have abandonment issues, but one has to admit that it's just a bit ironic that the software that basically redefined Apple's prowess in a professional sense (adobe had already dominated DTP and photography) would be stripped down. The question is of course for how long?



    Anyone know how large the dev team for FCP is now?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    That's really not helpful and fairly asshole-ish. It's not about "pissing on Apple", it's about a realistic assessment of what Apple intends for FCP X and who it works for.



    Video pros will use whatever tools work; their's nothing personal in it. If Apple at some point changes it up and adds back in a lot of collaborative functionally and user customizability those same pros will reconsider their options. It is true that Apple has burned some bridges here, so a lot of people will want to see at least the rudiments of a roadmap before they're willing to recommit. Nevertheless, if Apple builds the best tool they'll get the users, and pointless Apple bashing (or defending) really doesn't enter into it.



    It's ok Apple pissed first. But you're right ultimately everyone will just move on and make adjustments a needed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    Bull. There are professionals who simply can't use the new software due to missing features, so it literally IS not for the professionals doing that sort of work. And things like OMF/EDL are hardly "ancient" workflows, they are still used all the time, tape or no tape. Sure, there are plenty of professionals doing lower end work that will be perfectly happy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is missing features crucial for broadcast and film work. But since you're not a professional video editor, why should anyone care what you think about the situation?



    Good post.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    As people begin to dig into the underlying code of FCP X. They are finding that Apple has made radical and wide sweeping changes to the the architecture and file management. From a software development stand point these changes will potentially make FCP X far better than the original FCP could have ever been in its current form.



    Do you really believe Apple went through all of that effort to abandon the pro market and solely cater to the consumer?



    I do hope they are committed, but it really doesn't matter. If they fix the problem in a few months great, if then we'll buy different gear. If they fix the problems we'll consider it again.



    I would say all signs (hardware and software related) indicate at this point that it'll be a long wait... if it's ever their concern again.
  • Reply 71 of 221
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I think that was the whole point. To radically change the way editing is accomplished.







    The standard editing layout that we are more familiar with (preview screen, live screen, time line, clip bin) was appropriated from the language of the flat bed for film cutting and splicing.







    They designed the NLE UI to make it easier for editors who were used to the work flow and language of the Moviola flat bed.



    Even the terminology reel, cutting, splicing, B-roll, clips, bins. All literal terms for dealing with physical film.



    After all of this time why do we have to stay beholden to a work flow and language that we really stopped using twenty years ago? We've only hung on to it simply because it was how people were used to working.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Because if this is really Randy's idea then he has totally changed his original perspective on what makes a powerful editing application. This is just iMovie on steroids.



  • Reply 72 of 221
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    In April 2010 Steve Jobs wrote in his infamous "Thoughts on Flash":

    Quote:

    Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple?s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.



    Apple's own Finder wasn't converted to Cocoa until Snow Leopard, and Final Cut Pro is only now Cocoa-based, more than a year later.



    "Do as I say, not as I do."
  • Reply 73 of 221
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post


    In other words, Final Cut Pro X isn't ready for full production primetime now, but in a year, most people who are willing to stick it out will have adapted already.



    What I do argue is that if you have mission critical work, it's not as if your current version of Final Cut Studio has decided to implode on itself. By the time you will have carefully evaluated the software for your needs, more features will be added and then if critical feature X is missing, you should complain or move elsewhere.



    One concern in that direction is that the cue from Apple is that there won't be a project import from previous versions. Eventually the old software won't work anymore and there might not be a way to revive the project should it need any changes, as rare as that might be a few years down the road.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post


    No, it just requires that users download the FREE RedCineX from the RED website to convert into numerous formats for ingestion into FCP. Of course, it is a faster process with the Red Rocket card, but the price of that is prohibitive to any but pros.



    If you're dealing with RED footage then you're probably a pro. Though some sort of native editing would be a good idea.
  • Reply 74 of 221
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    The celluloid legacy stuff is a very good point, but the thing is that building an edit is firmly tied to a kind of physicality regardless of what you or Apple may think or want. The very fact of one image following another, with synchronous sound, is an exercise in a form of architectural making that can't be easily abstracted into a kind of everything at once computer database environment.



    There are some things about FCP X that are, in fact, a welcome break from the dictates of celluloid. But that comes at the expense of things that are simply reasonable ways of managing and sharing lots and lots of media, not to mention the woeful loss of customizability (which ironically takes us closer to flatbeds than not).
  • Reply 75 of 221
    The trend that Apple has been on is a disturbing one. They have been systematically dismantling their Enterprise/Corporate support now for some time.



    Xserve - dead

    Xsan - dead

    Xserver RAID - dead

    FCP Server - dead

    OSX Server - marginalized

    FCP - marginalized



    These were all solid products (well, with the exception of FCP Server). Sure each of them had their own little issues - but what enterprise level hardware or software doesn't?



    I quite honestly don't understand this trend. Sure the consumer market is a cash-cow for them, but with just a little bit more effort, Apple could have OWNED the Enterprise market as well. They certainly were positioned well to the small/medium sized businesses.



    As a consumer product, they're great. As an enterprise product, they look as if they are making every effort to completely remove themselves from the equation.
  • Reply 76 of 221
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ibgarrett View Post


    The trend that Apple has been on is a disturbing one. They have been systematically dismantling their Enterprise/Corporate support now for some time.



    Xserve - People weren't buying them.

    Xsan - People weren't buying it.

    XServe RAID - People weren't buying them.

    FCP Server - People weren't buying it.

    OSX Server - Cheaper.

    FCP - Revamp, full updates to come.



    Fixed.
  • Reply 77 of 221
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,622moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dnlzch View Post


    It imports older IMovie projects, but not older Final Cut projects. Like it or not, that kind of makes it IMovie Pro.



    That's about the size of it. This is the MobileMe of video editing:







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell


    As people begin to dig into the underlying code of FCP X. They are finding that Apple has made radical and wide sweeping changes to the the architecture and file management. From a software development stand point these changes will potentially make FCP X far better than the original FCP could have ever been in its current form.



    That's totally fine but they shouldn't discontinue the old software and upgrades. If you have FCS2, you can't get FCS3. You can't get Color or DVD Studio Pro any more. You cannot throw decades of work or file structuring out overnight and given the fact that you can't import old projects, you pretty much have to.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone


    Professional video editing requires a lot of collaboration.



    This is the one of the big things I don't get. They said that you can actually share files, you just have to recreate events or something but it's not nearly as clear as it was before. It seems fairly obvious that the software was designed for a single user yet it makes more sense to design it for multi-user and that way it works easily for everyone.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by edm81363


    Why would Apple's Product Managers interact with a non-editor to defend this product?



    They like to keep the press happy for some reason. They probably get Walt Mossberg to try all the apps out before anyone to see what he thinks. Every event, it's a press event, antennagate was apologising to the press. For a company that tells the press they are all about customers, I think it's about time they show us what that means in this scenario.
  • Reply 78 of 221
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ibgarrett View Post


    The trend that Apple has been on is a disturbing one. They have been systematically dismantling their Enterprise/Corporate support now for some time.



    Xserve - dead

    Xsan - dead

    Xserver RAID - dead

    FCP Server - dead

    OSX Server - marginalized

    FCP - marginalized



    These were all solid products (well, with the exception of FCP Server). Sure each of them had their own little issues - but what enterprise level hardware or software doesn't?



    I quite honestly don't understand this trend. Sure the consumer market is a cash-cow for them, but with just a little bit more effort, Apple could have OWNED the Enterprise market as well. They certainly were positioned well to the small/medium sized businesses.



    As a consumer product, they're great. As an enterprise product, they look as if they are making every effort to completely remove themselves from the equation.





    When this stuff started I resisted the idea that Apple was "abandoning the Pro market" since it seemed reasonable to wait and see what else they might have up their sleeve.



    But the stuff you list (not to mention the seemingly lackadaisical upgrade schedule for the Mac Pro) seem to irrefutably indicate that Apple has lost interest in supporting at least a certain kind of enterprise.



    Now, maybe Apple has some idea that they're positioning themselves to play a roll in some kind of 21st century enterprise that they've dreamed up-- more decentralized, quicker to evolve, something made up of a lot of cheap parts that can be quickly reconfigured via the cloud.



    But enterprise stuff (or professional media stuff) isn't like legacy I/O or optical disks or Rosetta. You can't churn those markets quickly enough to make quick traumatic break quickly forgotten in the flood of fun new stuff. They just don't operate that way. Maybe you create new markets, but old markets aren't swept aside in a year or two just because a computer company decided they were impatient with the Old Way of Doing Things.
  • Reply 79 of 221
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."



    A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.



    Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.



    Thankfully, one skill I've developed recently is how to spot a post about this topic by someone who has never been within ten miles of a post house. Saves me a lot of wasted reading.
  • Reply 80 of 221
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Well I'm not necessarily advocating for the way Apple has developed the new UI. I'll leave it up to the market to decide that one.



    I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    The celluloid legacy stuff is a very good point, but the thing is that building an edit is firmly tied to a kind of physicality regardless of what you or Apple may think or want. The very fact of one image following another, with synchronous sound, is an exercise in a form of architectural making that can't be easily abstracted into a kind of everything at once computer database environment.



    There are some things about FCP X that are, in fact, a welcome break from the dictates of celluloid. But that comes at the expense of things that are simply reasonable ways of managing and sharing lots and lots of media, not to mention the woeful loss of customizability (which ironically takes us closer to flatbeds than not).



Sign In or Register to comment.