Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?
Do you work for Apple's PR or something? You're defending their practices, but people just want to do their job. People actually EDIT for a day job. And yes, we can spend all day commending Apple's developers for their efforts to make things easier, but people are using a particular software brand for a reason.
Are you aware that there are Final Cut Pro classes? Actual courses where people learn and train before they become full-time editors? This is like learning a whole new system for them. Sure, it may take a few weeks, or even months to get accustomed to -- but that's a lot of time when there's a deadline looming. This effects people's livelihoods.
Software is supposed to evolve and get better.
Apple decided to give birth to a new system all together -- there's a reason there's a backlash. Stop blindly defending a company -- it's as if you've pledged allegiance to them.
Again, this thread are fractured into two lines. The professionals that make money using Apple products and the sheepies and apologists that only make Apple money.
The biggest distinction here is that FCPX would have been fine if it dropped the "Professional" from the title. The apologists think that Apple has done no wrong releasing a half baked product. In rare form, Apple has backpedaled by continuing to offer enterprise licensing and the software until this fiasco is fixed. The apologists and sheep have lost the argument that Apple does not care for this influential segment, at least for now.
Apple may want to get out of this segment because they can no longer compete software engineering wise with Adobe and Avid, I get that. The software market is competitive. Just don't throw around the pro moniker as a marketing tool. Some people actually make a lot of money and thousands to millions of dollars or assets invested in your product. Its something the clueless do not understand.
Again, this thread are fractured into two lines. The professionals that make money using Apple products and the sheepies and apologists that only make Apple money.
Another way to think of it is that it's fractured between the people who build software and the sheep who merely use software
i've gone through the fcp x training provided by ripple training. the presenter made more comparisons to imovie than he did to fcp 7. i'm by no means an industry professional when it comes to film but i've used fcp 7, imovie, and now fcp x. the presenter's references, the new interface, and the functionality (that which was modified and that which was dropped) all convince me that this is "imovie pro" rather than "final cut pro".
I have used Final Cut since its release and edited many sports shows for national TV. I have used X for a week now and I can do everything in X, I could in 7, it just took some figuring out. The big missing element is importing projects and the points Apple say are coming soon. I can live with out import by retaining 7 and look forward to the new features. Many plug in makers already have X versions available I see.
I think the problem in Pro edit houses is that the edit staff are trained to work employees (rather than being self employed and adaptive by nature) and many may take time to re learn. It is excellent news Apple have removed the EOL on 7 for their sakes. In time I think many will come over but in their own time not when forced.
I also think Apple need to add more to their web pages describing X, they actually make it seem far less capable than it is. A pro tips section would really help.
I agree Ripple focus too much on iMovie comparisons which doesn't help with all this really. I'm impressed you managed to stay awake during the Ripple training videos Oh my what a boring training series that is! I much preferred the energetic, if slightly more amateurish one by this guy. http://www.izzyvideo.com/final-cut-pro-x-tutorial/
Another way to think of it is that it's fractured between the people who build software and the sheep who merely use software
Now now, that's stretching it. People who build software are as important to humanity as those that use the software to make cool stuff. "Avatar" was impressive because of both the programmers, hardware engineers as well as the actors and artists.
Together, we make a better world... C'mon, group hug.
Another way to think of it is that it's fractured between the people who build software and the sheep who merely use software
There is another line you can draw to distinguish groups, those that are professionals but self employed and those that are professionals in the sense they employ a load of editors but may not actually be all that expert themselves rather managers.
The former group have the luxury to experiment and adapt the latter has nothing short of an assembly line to retool. I have great sympathy for the large company in situations like this but hiring outside trainers may be the way to go.
I have used Final Cut since its release and edited many sports shows for national TV. I have used X for a week now and I can do everything in X I could in 7, it just took some figuring out. The big missing element is importing projects and the points Apple say are coming soon. I think the problem in Pro edit houses is that the edit staff are trained to work employees (rather than being self employed and adaptive by nature) and many may take time to re learn. It is excellent news Apple have removed the EOL on 7 for their sakes. In time I think many will come over but in their own time not when forced.
It is nothing about adaptability, and everything about the core competencies of the software. Many editors are fluent in many varied tools (Avid Media Composer, Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, etc) - learning a new tool is not the issue.
The fact that you can do all you did in FCP7 with FCP X suggests that you weren't using FCP to it's full potential. In high volume post production there are a number of things that FCP7 can do that FCP X can't (and may never be able to).
Things like EDL/XML/OMF interchange are absolutely vital in many workflows. Things like multi-editor realtime collaboration (which FCP7 wasn't that good at, but could do) are impossible in FCP X.
More than anything flexibility is a requirement. If anything FCP X has become less flexible. While it's very usable for some specific workflows (shoot on file, edit and finish in FCP X and deliver a file) it lacks the flexibility to support any other workflows well.
The tape I/O is a big example of this. Yes, it is possible to capture with the AJA or Blackmagic tools, but there is no way to batch-capture or recapture a file. The nature of FCP X's media management mean that if you lost a file that had been captured from tape and had to recapture it there would be NO way to relink that media. You would have no choice but to re-edit.
Similarly, you could export a finished edit to a file and then output that to tape with a third-party tool, but if you needed to make a simple correction or reinsert a shot - that would be a huge effort. It's not even possible to export a segment of a timeline, you can only export the whole thing - you have to duplicate and then remove the unwanted bits.
FCP X as it exists now is absolutely completely unsuitable for most of the work I've done in FCP 6 and 7 before, and wouldn't even be remotely useful for the high-volume network TV work I do in Avid.
In time the application itself and the third-party tools around it will improve it's suitability for a wider range of workflows, but fundamentally Apple is unwilling to support some of the "old" workflows that are still the backbone of major TV and film work. And Apple has burned their trust and reputation in that industry.
It is nothing about adaptability, and everything about the core competencies of the software. Many editors are fluent in many varied tools (Avid Media Composer, Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, etc) - learning a new tool is not the issue.
The fact that you can do all you did in FCP7 with FCP X suggests that you weren't using FCP to it's full potential. In high volume post production there are a number of things that FCP7 can do that FCP X can't (and may never be able to).
Things like EDL/XML/OMF interchange are absolutely vital in many workflows. Things like multi-editor realtime collaboration (which FCP7 wasn't that good at, but could do) are impossible in FCP7.
More than anything flexibility is a requirement. If anything FCP X has become less flexible. While it's very usable for some specific workflows (shoot on file, edit and finish in FCP X and deliver a file) it lacks the flexibility to support any other workflows well.
The tape I/O is a big example of this. Yes, it is possible to capture with the AJA or Blackmagic tools, but there is no way to batch-capture or recapture a file. The nature of FCP X's media management mean that if you lost a file that had been captured from tape and had to recapture it there would be NO way to relink that media. You would have no choice but to re-edit.
Similarly, you could export a finished edit to a file and then output that to tape with a third-party tool, but if you needed to make a simple correction or reinsert a shot - that would be a huge effort. It's not even possible to export a segment of a timeline, you can only export the whole thing - you have to duplicate and then remove the unwanted bits.
FCP X as it exists now is absolutely completely unsuitable for most of the work I've done in FCP 6 and 7 before, and wouldn't even be remotely useful for the high-volume network TV work I do in Avid.
In time the application itself and the third-party tools around it will improve it's suitability for a wider range of workflows, but fundamentally Apple is unwilling to support some of the "old" workflows that are still the backbone of major TV and film work. And Apple has burned their trust and reputation in that industry.
I don't disagree, I have arguing on the same points for weeks if you check back through the threads. What I am saying now, is X isn't as lacking in many areas as I first thought after using it and I can adapt as a one man band freelancer. X can be brought up to speed with all those missing functions and if only import of projects is missing then I can live with that for now by keeping 7. I have argued for Apple to lift the EOL for production houses since X was released. It was a PR disaster for sure.
I don't disagree, I have arguing on the same points for weeks if you check back through the threads. What I am saying now, is X isn't as lacking in many areas as I first thought after using it and I can adapt as a one man band freelancer. X can be brought up to speed with all those missing functions and if only import of projects is missing then I can live with that for now by keeping 7. I have argued for Apple to lift the EOL for production houses since X was released. It was a PR disaster for sure.
If a project can be completed by one editor, on one computer staying within the one application then overall FCP X should be fine (things like Multicam not withstanding). And that describes plenty of "professionals" perfectly (which is the problem with that term - it's very broad).
I really don't think Apple want the higher-end market - or at least don't care if they lose it. I really think they should be honest - say something like "we feel that the we can produce a better product if we focus on the needs of the majority of our users. Unfortunately this means that Final Cut Pro may no longer be suitable for some high end users. We will continue to sell FCP7 to those users for the next 6 months, and will maintain security and compatibility updates through 2012."
While they are unwilling to admit that FCP X is simply not going to be suitable for many of those high end users and respond to their concerns with dismissive and seemingly detached responses as in the FAQ they are only further damaging their reputation. I know of one business already that has cancelled a large Mac Pro order because they feel so uncomfortable with Apple as a supplier now (even without FCP7 which was destined for those computers, they would have be suitable hardware).
I know you are asking another poster, but let me chime in on this.
Apple will certainly update to address the issues. That will only improve FCPX and I think after 2 years make it a better solution for many editors. However, there may be some features that will never make it back due to how they rewrote it. As such, there will be some, probably high-end editors, that will stick to FCP7 as long as possible, then switch to something else that meets their needs.
We don't know what exactly will happen. But that doesn't change what has happened with FCPX.
Mac OS 9 is still way better in every aspect than OS X is claimed by some. But than again some people believe no one has been on the moon.
If the answer it "professionals" then please clarify what "professionals" means and explain reasoning?
From what I can see as an outsider (I am not part of the FCPX team) Apples aim was to unify editing so it could be used by amateurs an professionals at the same time.
The key is to simplify editing and content management but making it more powerful at the same time. Professional users can buy additional plugins they need because the software is an ecosystem.
This takes time of course because third parties and Apple itself need time to get this up and beyond the capabilities of FCP.
That Apple is perfectly capable in doing this is shown by Xcode.
You're dead right - no prosumers involved. It's a consumer app.
You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the semantic difference between Apples 'aim' with FCPX and your opinion about the current state of FCPX. Maybe it's a bit to difficult for you to understand.
Support and perhaps licensing that Apple has to pay to third parties for patented technologies in Final Cut that Apple uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Wonder what the legal ramifications of merely continuing to sell FCP7 licenses to existing owners would be? Apple owns it and can do what they want it can't they? Are they thinking of support?
If a project can be completed by one editor, on one computer staying within the one application then overall FCP X should be fine (things like Multicam not withstanding). And that describes plenty of "professionals" perfectly (which is the problem with that term - it's very broad).
I really don't think Apple want the higher-end market - or at least don't care if they lose it. I really think they should be honest - say something like "we feel that the we can produce a better product if we focus on the needs of the majority of our users. Unfortunately this means that Final Cut Pro may no longer be suitable for some high end users. We will continue to sell FCP7 to those users for the next 6 months, and will maintain security and compatibility updates through 2012."
While they are unwilling to admit that FCP X is simply not going to be suitable for many of those high end users and respond to their concerns with dismissive and seemingly detached responses as in the FAQ they are only further damaging their reputation. I know of one business already that has cancelled a large Mac Pro order because they feel so uncomfortable with Apple as a supplier now (even without FCP7 which was destined for those computers, they would have be suitable hardware).
BTW, not for ABC prime time for sure but I did a four camera multi-cam in X no problem, in fact far more easily since it automatically synced the clips on audio. There really is a multi track time line there, just well hidden.
I really don't think Apple want the higher-end market - or at least don't care if they lose it.
I think that Apple is taking Santayana's dictum to heart and is determined to learn the lessons of history. The history in the IT world is that consumer has beaten enterprise whenever the two have come into direct competition, due to the huge economies of scale in the consumer space.
So we see increasingly supercomputers are built using consumer components, or enterprise versions of consumer chips. We see consumer versions of enterprise chips such as the Power architecture driven completely out of the consumer space. We see the total death of Silicon Graphics at the hands of Nvidia & ATI. We see countless technologies like Betamax and DAT that never broke out of the enterprise space. We see the recent defenestration of RIM and Microsoft in the smartphone world at the hands of genuine consumer platforms.
Apple's bet here is that the paradigm that has worked in hardware, and has been shown to work in smartphone platforms will also work in productivity applications. It's a daring bet, but even losing it they still win the consumer market, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
I think that Apple is taking Santayana's dictum to heart and is determined to learn the lessons of history. The history in the IT world is that consumer has beaten enterprise whenever the two have come into direct competition, due to the huge economies of scale in the consumer space.
So we see increasingly supercomputers are built using consumer components, or enterprise versions of consumer chips. We see consumer versions of enterprise chips such as the Power architecture driven completely out of the consumer space. We see the total death of Silicon Graphics at the hands of Nvidia & ATI. We see countless technologies like Betamax and DAT that never broke out of the enterprise space. We see the recent defenestration of RIM and Microsoft in the smartphone world at the hands of genuine consumer platforms.
Apple's bet here is that the paradigm that has worked in hardware, and has been shown to work in smartphone platforms will also work in productivity applications. It's a daring bet, but even losing it they still win the consumer market, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
All very true and in terms of FCPro itself I remember well Final Cut was considered a toy for amateurs by the Cube, Avid and Media 100 crowd at the beginning.
You mean the guy who developed Adobe Premier, Key Grip, Final Cut Pro, iMovie, and now Final Cut Pro X? Right.
People don't understand that sometimes to go forward you have to go backwards first. The same happened when Apple went from the Mac OS 9 to OSX. OSX in its first version lacked lots of features that OS 9 had. The improvements to OSX over OS 9 were largely under the hood. Many people couldn't use OSX as their primary OS. Apple quickly went to work and added missing features. Now it is great.
To add many of the features that Final Cut Pro X has, Apple had to do away with backward compatibility because the technology isn't compatible. I can see how that stinks, but sometimes life stinks. Apple will many of the missing features. Meanwhile, Final Cut Pro 7 still works. When Apple went to OSX, files like .doc were not backwards compatible either. Companies had to offer work arounds.
This is not a software problem. The problem is with Apple's delivery of the new Final Cut. Apple should have understood better the needs of professionals and continued to offer Final Cut Pro 7 for some time. Further, it should have done a better job beforehand to let people know about what was left out. Apple should have made the lack of backward compatibility known. Apple consulted with video professionals, but perhaps not a reflective enough bunch.
Somebody suggested Apple should have released Final Cut Pro X as Final Cut Pro Express X. I think that would have solved some problems. People could have given Apple feedback and people could have digested the changes better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
I never want to see anyone lose his/her job, but this Randy(?) guy who heads Apple's video software development needs to go immediately.
You mean the guy who developed Adobe Premier, Key Grip, Final Cut Pro, iMovie, and now Final Cut Pro X? Right.
People don't understand that sometimes to go forward you have to go backwards first. The same happened when Apple went from the Mac OS 9 to OSX. OSX in its first version lacked lots of features that OS 9 had. The improvements to OSX over OS 9 were largely under the hood. Many people couldn't use OSX as their primary OS. Apple quickly went to work and added missing features. Now it is great.
To add many of the features that Final Cut Pro X has, Apple had to do away with backward compatibility because the technology isn't compatible. I can see how that stinks, but sometimes life stinks. Apple will many of the missing features. Meanwhile, Final Cut Pro 7 still works.
This is not a software problem. The problem is with Apple's delivery of the new Final Cut. Apple should have understood better the needs of professionals and continued to offer Final Cut Pro 7 for some time. Further, it should have done a better job beforehand to let people know about what was left out. Apple should have made the lack of backward compatibility known. Apple consulted with video professionals, but perhaps not a reflective enough bunch.
Somebody suggested Apple should have released Final Cut Pro X as Final Cut Pro Express X. I think that would have solved some problems. People could have given Apple feedback and people could have digested the changes better.
100% agree on all points (now the EOL is lifted). Amazing people writing here don't even check who Randy is!
I also suggest people dive in and discover all the features Apple are hiding so well in X. Like so many of their consumer apps (this might also signify a shift in philosophy) Apple simply leaves you discover so much that isn't mentioned anywhere unless you really dig. This is a stark contrast to a set of manuals that is hard to lift from FCPro of old!
Fair enough, they started over, which is commendable. But they forgot to put "back" some essential features. Microsoft Office is full of bloated nonsense, I agree. But unfortunately nobody has really gone for their jugular, even though some have made attempts that got halfway.
Adobe is slightly different... There are a lot of features but CS4 and CS5 are fairly smooth to operate on a recent Mac. Adobe did a lot of re-writing along the way, without having to start from scratch. They did the transition to Intel, then Cocoa and 64-bit as well. No small feat.
Yes... agreed: no small feat.
HOWEVER... that is ALL they are expected to do, and that is write good software. Now...
- hows Flash going for them?
- why kill a better program, and try to bolt on stuff over 6 years with a program like Illustrator vs. FreeHand, and still failing to match today what FH had 10 years ago?
- At what point will "bolting on" stuff just not work efficiently any more, and a rewrite will be in order?
- Photoshop I dare say could be probably 10x faster than it is today, if they were concentrating on using Core frameworks, rather than programming for the lowest common denominator i.e. Windows.
Waiting until tomorrow what should be done today, is not Apple's modicum of operation. When does the competition think they will ever catch up, regardless of hardware or software?
Comments
Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?
Do you work for Apple's PR or something? You're defending their practices, but people just want to do their job. People actually EDIT for a day job. And yes, we can spend all day commending Apple's developers for their efforts to make things easier, but people are using a particular software brand for a reason.
Are you aware that there are Final Cut Pro classes? Actual courses where people learn and train before they become full-time editors? This is like learning a whole new system for them. Sure, it may take a few weeks, or even months to get accustomed to -- but that's a lot of time when there's a deadline looming. This effects people's livelihoods.
Software is supposed to evolve and get better.
Apple decided to give birth to a new system all together -- there's a reason there's a backlash. Stop blindly defending a company -- it's as if you've pledged allegiance to them.
The biggest distinction here is that FCPX would have been fine if it dropped the "Professional" from the title. The apologists think that Apple has done no wrong releasing a half baked product. In rare form, Apple has backpedaled by continuing to offer enterprise licensing and the software until this fiasco is fixed. The apologists and sheep have lost the argument that Apple does not care for this influential segment, at least for now.
Apple may want to get out of this segment because they can no longer compete software engineering wise with Adobe and Avid, I get that. The software market is competitive. Just don't throw around the pro moniker as a marketing tool. Some people actually make a lot of money and thousands to millions of dollars or assets invested in your product. Its something the clueless do not understand.
Again, this thread are fractured into two lines. The professionals that make money using Apple products and the sheepies and apologists that only make Apple money.
Another way to think of it is that it's fractured between the people who build software and the sheep who merely use software
i've gone through the fcp x training provided by ripple training. the presenter made more comparisons to imovie than he did to fcp 7. i'm by no means an industry professional when it comes to film but i've used fcp 7, imovie, and now fcp x. the presenter's references, the new interface, and the functionality (that which was modified and that which was dropped) all convince me that this is "imovie pro" rather than "final cut pro".
I have used Final Cut since its release and edited many sports shows for national TV. I have used X for a week now and I can do everything in X, I could in 7, it just took some figuring out. The big missing element is importing projects and the points Apple say are coming soon. I can live with out import by retaining 7 and look forward to the new features. Many plug in makers already have X versions available I see.
I think the problem in Pro edit houses is that the edit staff are trained to work employees (rather than being self employed and adaptive by nature) and many may take time to re learn. It is excellent news Apple have removed the EOL on 7 for their sakes. In time I think many will come over but in their own time not when forced.
I also think Apple need to add more to their web pages describing X, they actually make it seem far less capable than it is. A pro tips section would really help.
I agree Ripple focus too much on iMovie comparisons which doesn't help with all this really. I'm impressed you managed to stay awake during the Ripple training videos
Another way to think of it is that it's fractured between the people who build software and the sheep who merely use software
Now now, that's stretching it. People who build software are as important to humanity as those that use the software to make cool stuff. "Avatar" was impressive because of both the programmers, hardware engineers as well as the actors and artists.
Together, we make a better world... C'mon, group hug.
Another way to think of it is that it's fractured between the people who build software and the sheep who merely use software
There is another line you can draw to distinguish groups, those that are professionals but self employed and those that are professionals in the sense they employ a load of editors but may not actually be all that expert themselves rather managers.
The former group have the luxury to experiment and adapt the latter has nothing short of an assembly line to retool. I have great sympathy for the large company in situations like this but hiring outside trainers may be the way to go.
I have used Final Cut since its release and edited many sports shows for national TV. I have used X for a week now and I can do everything in X I could in 7, it just took some figuring out. The big missing element is importing projects and the points Apple say are coming soon. I think the problem in Pro edit houses is that the edit staff are trained to work employees (rather than being self employed and adaptive by nature) and many may take time to re learn. It is excellent news Apple have removed the EOL on 7 for their sakes. In time I think many will come over but in their own time not when forced.
It is nothing about adaptability, and everything about the core competencies of the software. Many editors are fluent in many varied tools (Avid Media Composer, Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, etc) - learning a new tool is not the issue.
The fact that you can do all you did in FCP7 with FCP X suggests that you weren't using FCP to it's full potential. In high volume post production there are a number of things that FCP7 can do that FCP X can't (and may never be able to).
Things like EDL/XML/OMF interchange are absolutely vital in many workflows. Things like multi-editor realtime collaboration (which FCP7 wasn't that good at, but could do) are impossible in FCP X.
More than anything flexibility is a requirement. If anything FCP X has become less flexible. While it's very usable for some specific workflows (shoot on file, edit and finish in FCP X and deliver a file) it lacks the flexibility to support any other workflows well.
The tape I/O is a big example of this. Yes, it is possible to capture with the AJA or Blackmagic tools, but there is no way to batch-capture or recapture a file. The nature of FCP X's media management mean that if you lost a file that had been captured from tape and had to recapture it there would be NO way to relink that media. You would have no choice but to re-edit.
Similarly, you could export a finished edit to a file and then output that to tape with a third-party tool, but if you needed to make a simple correction or reinsert a shot - that would be a huge effort. It's not even possible to export a segment of a timeline, you can only export the whole thing - you have to duplicate and then remove the unwanted bits.
FCP X as it exists now is absolutely completely unsuitable for most of the work I've done in FCP 6 and 7 before, and wouldn't even be remotely useful for the high-volume network TV work I do in Avid.
In time the application itself and the third-party tools around it will improve it's suitability for a wider range of workflows, but fundamentally Apple is unwilling to support some of the "old" workflows that are still the backbone of major TV and film work. And Apple has burned their trust and reputation in that industry.
It is nothing about adaptability, and everything about the core competencies of the software. Many editors are fluent in many varied tools (Avid Media Composer, Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, etc) - learning a new tool is not the issue.
The fact that you can do all you did in FCP7 with FCP X suggests that you weren't using FCP to it's full potential. In high volume post production there are a number of things that FCP7 can do that FCP X can't (and may never be able to).
Things like EDL/XML/OMF interchange are absolutely vital in many workflows. Things like multi-editor realtime collaboration (which FCP7 wasn't that good at, but could do) are impossible in FCP7.
More than anything flexibility is a requirement. If anything FCP X has become less flexible. While it's very usable for some specific workflows (shoot on file, edit and finish in FCP X and deliver a file) it lacks the flexibility to support any other workflows well.
The tape I/O is a big example of this. Yes, it is possible to capture with the AJA or Blackmagic tools, but there is no way to batch-capture or recapture a file. The nature of FCP X's media management mean that if you lost a file that had been captured from tape and had to recapture it there would be NO way to relink that media. You would have no choice but to re-edit.
Similarly, you could export a finished edit to a file and then output that to tape with a third-party tool, but if you needed to make a simple correction or reinsert a shot - that would be a huge effort. It's not even possible to export a segment of a timeline, you can only export the whole thing - you have to duplicate and then remove the unwanted bits.
FCP X as it exists now is absolutely completely unsuitable for most of the work I've done in FCP 6 and 7 before, and wouldn't even be remotely useful for the high-volume network TV work I do in Avid.
In time the application itself and the third-party tools around it will improve it's suitability for a wider range of workflows, but fundamentally Apple is unwilling to support some of the "old" workflows that are still the backbone of major TV and film work. And Apple has burned their trust and reputation in that industry.
I don't disagree, I have arguing on the same points for weeks if you check back through the threads. What I am saying now, is X isn't as lacking in many areas as I first thought after using it and I can adapt as a one man band freelancer. X can be brought up to speed with all those missing functions and if only import of projects is missing then I can live with that for now by keeping 7. I have argued for Apple to lift the EOL for production houses since X was released. It was a PR disaster for sure.
I don't disagree, I have arguing on the same points for weeks if you check back through the threads. What I am saying now, is X isn't as lacking in many areas as I first thought after using it and I can adapt as a one man band freelancer. X can be brought up to speed with all those missing functions and if only import of projects is missing then I can live with that for now by keeping 7. I have argued for Apple to lift the EOL for production houses since X was released. It was a PR disaster for sure.
If a project can be completed by one editor, on one computer staying within the one application then overall FCP X should be fine (things like Multicam not withstanding). And that describes plenty of "professionals" perfectly (which is the problem with that term - it's very broad).
I really don't think Apple want the higher-end market - or at least don't care if they lose it. I really think they should be honest - say something like "we feel that the we can produce a better product if we focus on the needs of the majority of our users. Unfortunately this means that Final Cut Pro may no longer be suitable for some high end users. We will continue to sell FCP7 to those users for the next 6 months, and will maintain security and compatibility updates through 2012."
While they are unwilling to admit that FCP X is simply not going to be suitable for many of those high end users and respond to their concerns with dismissive and seemingly detached responses as in the FAQ they are only further damaging their reputation. I know of one business already that has cancelled a large Mac Pro order because they feel so uncomfortable with Apple as a supplier now (even without FCP7 which was destined for those computers, they would have be suitable hardware).
I don't think Apple realized how many people in the video editing community are out of touch with the rest of the software and tech industry.
haha. Nice try Randy Ubilos.
I know you are asking another poster, but let me chime in on this.
Apple will certainly update to address the issues. That will only improve FCPX and I think after 2 years make it a better solution for many editors. However, there may be some features that will never make it back due to how they rewrote it. As such, there will be some, probably high-end editors, that will stick to FCP7 as long as possible, then switch to something else that meets their needs.
We don't know what exactly will happen. But that doesn't change what has happened with FCPX.
Mac OS 9 is still way better in every aspect than OS X is claimed by some. But than again some people believe no one has been on the moon.
J.
Who is it aimed at then?
If the answer it "professionals" then please clarify what "professionals" means and explain reasoning?
From what I can see as an outsider (I am not part of the FCPX team) Apples aim was to unify editing so it could be used by amateurs an professionals at the same time.
The key is to simplify editing and content management but making it more powerful at the same time. Professional users can buy additional plugins they need because the software is an ecosystem.
This takes time of course because third parties and Apple itself need time to get this up and beyond the capabilities of FCP.
That Apple is perfectly capable in doing this is shown by Xcode.
J.
You're dead right - no prosumers involved. It's a consumer app.
You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the semantic difference between Apples 'aim' with FCPX and your opinion about the current state of FCPX. Maybe it's a bit to difficult for you to understand.
J.
Wonder what the legal ramifications of merely continuing to sell FCP7 licenses to existing owners would be? Apple owns it and can do what they want it can't they? Are they thinking of support?
If a project can be completed by one editor, on one computer staying within the one application then overall FCP X should be fine (things like Multicam not withstanding). And that describes plenty of "professionals" perfectly (which is the problem with that term - it's very broad).
I really don't think Apple want the higher-end market - or at least don't care if they lose it. I really think they should be honest - say something like "we feel that the we can produce a better product if we focus on the needs of the majority of our users. Unfortunately this means that Final Cut Pro may no longer be suitable for some high end users. We will continue to sell FCP7 to those users for the next 6 months, and will maintain security and compatibility updates through 2012."
While they are unwilling to admit that FCP X is simply not going to be suitable for many of those high end users and respond to their concerns with dismissive and seemingly detached responses as in the FAQ they are only further damaging their reputation. I know of one business already that has cancelled a large Mac Pro order because they feel so uncomfortable with Apple as a supplier now (even without FCP7 which was destined for those computers, they would have be suitable hardware).
BTW, not for ABC prime time for sure but I did a four camera multi-cam in X no problem, in fact far more easily since it automatically synced the clips on audio. There really is a multi track time line there, just well hidden.
I really don't think Apple want the higher-end market - or at least don't care if they lose it.
I think that Apple is taking Santayana's dictum to heart and is determined to learn the lessons of history. The history in the IT world is that consumer has beaten enterprise whenever the two have come into direct competition, due to the huge economies of scale in the consumer space.
So we see increasingly supercomputers are built using consumer components, or enterprise versions of consumer chips. We see consumer versions of enterprise chips such as the Power architecture driven completely out of the consumer space. We see the total death of Silicon Graphics at the hands of Nvidia & ATI. We see countless technologies like Betamax and DAT that never broke out of the enterprise space. We see the recent defenestration of RIM and Microsoft in the smartphone world at the hands of genuine consumer platforms.
Apple's bet here is that the paradigm that has worked in hardware, and has been shown to work in smartphone platforms will also work in productivity applications. It's a daring bet, but even losing it they still win the consumer market, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
I think that Apple is taking Santayana's dictum to heart and is determined to learn the lessons of history. The history in the IT world is that consumer has beaten enterprise whenever the two have come into direct competition, due to the huge economies of scale in the consumer space.
So we see increasingly supercomputers are built using consumer components, or enterprise versions of consumer chips. We see consumer versions of enterprise chips such as the Power architecture driven completely out of the consumer space. We see the total death of Silicon Graphics at the hands of Nvidia & ATI. We see countless technologies like Betamax and DAT that never broke out of the enterprise space. We see the recent defenestration of RIM and Microsoft in the smartphone world at the hands of genuine consumer platforms.
Apple's bet here is that the paradigm that has worked in hardware, and has been shown to work in smartphone platforms will also work in productivity applications. It's a daring bet, but even losing it they still win the consumer market, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
All very true and in terms of FCPro itself I remember well Final Cut was considered a toy for amateurs by the Cube, Avid and Media 100 crowd at the beginning.
People don't understand that sometimes to go forward you have to go backwards first. The same happened when Apple went from the Mac OS 9 to OSX. OSX in its first version lacked lots of features that OS 9 had. The improvements to OSX over OS 9 were largely under the hood. Many people couldn't use OSX as their primary OS. Apple quickly went to work and added missing features. Now it is great.
To add many of the features that Final Cut Pro X has, Apple had to do away with backward compatibility because the technology isn't compatible. I can see how that stinks, but sometimes life stinks. Apple will many of the missing features. Meanwhile, Final Cut Pro 7 still works. When Apple went to OSX, files like .doc were not backwards compatible either. Companies had to offer work arounds.
This is not a software problem. The problem is with Apple's delivery of the new Final Cut. Apple should have understood better the needs of professionals and continued to offer Final Cut Pro 7 for some time. Further, it should have done a better job beforehand to let people know about what was left out. Apple should have made the lack of backward compatibility known. Apple consulted with video professionals, but perhaps not a reflective enough bunch.
Somebody suggested Apple should have released Final Cut Pro X as Final Cut Pro Express X. I think that would have solved some problems. People could have given Apple feedback and people could have digested the changes better.
I never want to see anyone lose his/her job, but this Randy(?) guy who heads Apple's video software development needs to go immediately.
You mean the guy who developed Adobe Premier, Key Grip, Final Cut Pro, iMovie, and now Final Cut Pro X? Right.
People don't understand that sometimes to go forward you have to go backwards first. The same happened when Apple went from the Mac OS 9 to OSX. OSX in its first version lacked lots of features that OS 9 had. The improvements to OSX over OS 9 were largely under the hood. Many people couldn't use OSX as their primary OS. Apple quickly went to work and added missing features. Now it is great.
To add many of the features that Final Cut Pro X has, Apple had to do away with backward compatibility because the technology isn't compatible. I can see how that stinks, but sometimes life stinks. Apple will many of the missing features. Meanwhile, Final Cut Pro 7 still works.
This is not a software problem. The problem is with Apple's delivery of the new Final Cut. Apple should have understood better the needs of professionals and continued to offer Final Cut Pro 7 for some time. Further, it should have done a better job beforehand to let people know about what was left out. Apple should have made the lack of backward compatibility known. Apple consulted with video professionals, but perhaps not a reflective enough bunch.
Somebody suggested Apple should have released Final Cut Pro X as Final Cut Pro Express X. I think that would have solved some problems. People could have given Apple feedback and people could have digested the changes better.
100% agree on all points (now the EOL is lifted). Amazing people writing here don't even check who Randy is!
I also suggest people dive in and discover all the features Apple are hiding so well in X. Like so many of their consumer apps (this might also signify a shift in philosophy) Apple simply leaves you discover so much that isn't mentioned anywhere unless you really dig. This is a stark contrast to a set of manuals that is hard to lift from FCPro of old!
Fair enough, they started over, which is commendable. But they forgot to put "back" some essential features. Microsoft Office is full of bloated nonsense, I agree. But unfortunately nobody has really gone for their jugular, even though some have made attempts that got halfway.
Adobe is slightly different... There are a lot of features but CS4 and CS5 are fairly smooth to operate on a recent Mac. Adobe did a lot of re-writing along the way, without having to start from scratch. They did the transition to Intel, then Cocoa and 64-bit as well. No small feat.
Yes... agreed: no small feat.
HOWEVER... that is ALL they are expected to do, and that is write good software. Now...
- hows Flash going for them?
- why kill a better program, and try to bolt on stuff over 6 years with a program like Illustrator vs. FreeHand, and still failing to match today what FH had 10 years ago?
- At what point will "bolting on" stuff just not work efficiently any more, and a rewrite will be in order?
- Photoshop I dare say could be probably 10x faster than it is today, if they were concentrating on using Core frameworks, rather than programming for the lowest common denominator i.e. Windows.
Waiting until tomorrow what should be done today, is not Apple's modicum of operation. When does the competition think they will ever catch up, regardless of hardware or software?